Colon polyps in patients with short bowel syndrome before and after teduglutide: Post hoc analysis of the STEPS study series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Teduglutide promotes intestinal growth and is approved for the treatment of short bowel syndrome and intestinal failure (SBS-IF). Based on the pharmacologic activity and preclinical findings, teduglutide can potentially induce proliferative colonic mucosal changes. The aim of this study is to report the occurrence of colorectal polyps in adult patients with SBS-IF who received teduglutide in clinical studies conducted to date. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of the completed Study of Teduglutide Effectiveness in Parenteral Nutrition-Dependent Short Bowel Syndrome Subjects (STEPS) clinical study series (NCT00798967, EudraCT 2008-006193-15; NCT00930644, EudraCT 2009-011679-65; NCT01560403) evaluated electronic case report form data for baseline colonoscopies (performed before treatment) and for surveillance or end-of-study (performed after treatment with teduglutide 0.05 mg/kg/day for 24 and 36 months) post-exposure procedures. RESULTS: In the STEPS studies, 73 patients treated with teduglutide had a baseline colonoscopy. No post-exposure colonoscopy was scheduled in STEPS. In STEPS-2/3, 50 of 65 patients with remnant colon (77%) underwent a protocol-mandated post-exposure colonoscopy. Colon polyps were reported at baseline in 12% (9/73) of patients and post-exposure in 18% (9/50) of patients. Two had polyps both at baseline and post-exposure. On histology, available for 7 patients, 5 had adenomas (1 serrated, 4 tubular) and none had malignancy or high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSION: These data support recommendations for colonoscopic screening before teduglutide therapy and subsequent on-therapy colonoscopic surveillance for patients with SBS-IF. Further studies are required to assess the risk of polyp formation in patients with SBS-IF and the most appropriate colon polyp surveillance strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".