Purpose: Gastric neoplasia is a common manifestation of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). This study aimed to elucidate the clinical characteristics, endoscopic features including fundic gland polyposis (FGPsis), and treatment outcomes of gastric neoplasms (GNs) in patients with FAP. Materials and Methods: A total of 35 patients diagnosed with FAP, including nine patients from four pedigrees who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), were investigated regarding patient characteristics, GN morphology, and treatment outcomes. Results: Twenty-one patients (60.0%) had 38 GNs; 33 (86.8%) and 5 (13.2%) were histologically diagnosed with adenocarcinoma and adenoma, respectively. There were no specific patient characteristics related to GNs.Nodule-type GNs were more prevalent in patients with FGP than without (52.2% vs. 0.0%, P=0.002) in the upper body of the stomach. Conversely, depressed-type GNs were fewer in patients with FGPsis than in those without (13.0% vs. 73.3%, P<0.001). Slightly elevated-type GNs were observed in both groups (34.8% vs. 20.0%, P=0.538). Even within pedigrees, the background gastric mucosa and types of GNs varied. In total, 24 GNs were treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and eight with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). EMR was selected for GNs with FGPsis because of the technical difficulty of ESD, resulting in a lower en bloc resection rate (62.5% vs. 100%, P=0.014). Conclusions Our study indicates the necessity of routine EGD surveillance in patients diagnosed with FAP. Notably, the morphology and location of GNs differed between patients with and without FGPsis. Endoscopic treatment and outcomes require more attention in cases of FGPsis.

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.