Tommaso Pessarelli1†
Alessandra Piagnani1Gian Eugenio Tontini2,3*†Irene Maria Bambina Bergna1Arnaldo Amato1- 1Digestive Endoscopy and Gastroenterology Department, Ospedale A. Manzoni, Lecco, Italy
- 2Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
- 3Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
Patients with long-standing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) involving the colon have an approximately 2–3-fold risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), which remains a leading cause of mortality in this population. However, data specifically assessing CRC incidence in Crohn’s disease (CD) are limited, and these patients also face an increased risk of small bowel cancer (SBC). Endoscopy plays a central role in CRC prevention, as well as in the detection and management of dysplasia and early CRC in CD. This review summarizes current evidence on the role of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, as well as small bowel capsule endoscopy and device assisted enteroscopy, in this context. It provides practical guidance on the optimal use of these endoscopic techniques, considering patient- and disease-specific factors. Additionally, it highlights emerging endoscopic technologies and future perspectives in the field.
1 Introduction
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of developing gastrointestinal (GI) cancers (1). While this risk is well documented in ulcerative colitis (UC), in Crohn’s disease (CD) it is considerably more heterogeneous—both in terms of incidence and cancer location—depending on specific disease characteristics (2). Notably, most current evidence on cancer prevention, surveillance, and management in IBD is derived from UC-predominant cohorts (3). As a result, existing guidelines often fail to adequately differentiate between UC and CD in terms of cancer risk profiles and preventive strategies (2). Additionally, patients with CD are at increased risk of other GI malignancies, including small bowel cancer (4), an area with limited scientific evidence, as well as pouch and anal cancers, although the latter two are beyond the scope of this review. This scarcity of data hampers the development of specific, evidence-based recommendations for prevention and clinical management. In this context, GI endoscopy—supported by recent technological advances—is expected to play a central role in managing these patients. However, given that these techniques are often invasive and costly, their use must be carefully tailored to individual patient characteristics and risk profiles. This review summarizes current scientific evidence on the epidemiology and risk factors for GI cancers in CD and discusses recent technological advancements in endoscopy alongside future perspectives.
2 Crohn’s disease and colorectal cancer
2.1 Epidemiology and risk factors
Although some studies did not observe an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in CD (5–8), likely due to limited sample sizes and statistical power, two meta-analyses involving 6 and 34 studies, respectively, reported a 1.9- to 2.4-fold increased risk (9, 10). A declining trend has been observed in more recent years, potentially due to longer follow-up periods enabling higher dysplasia detection rates—as seen in UC (11)—and the more frequent achievement of deep remission through biologic therapies (12). Nevertheless, CRC risk in CD remains highly heterogeneous and is influenced by both disease- and patient-specific factors (2). Notably, CD without colonic involvement does not confer increased CRC risk, and thus, surveillance colonoscopy is not indicated for isolated small bowel disease (13–15). In a Hungarian longitudinal study, the stenosing phenotype was most strongly associated with CRC risk (5%) (16). Patient-related risk factors include male sex and early age at disease onset (17). A large retrospective Scandinavian cohort study reported a relative risk of 2.6 in males versus 1.9 in females (17). In contrast, the association between high inflammatory burden and increased neoplasia risk appears more relevant in UC (18). For example, the association between pseudo-polyps (as a marker of previous severe inflammation) and CRC risk was not confirmed in studies that also included CD patients (19, 20). While untreated dysplasia is expected to increase malignancy risk, most supporting data originate from UC studies (11). Patients with perianal disease also appear to have elevated CRC risk; 37% of CD patients with rectal cancer had perianal involvement (21). Although primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is associated with increased CRC risk in CD, the association is weaker than in UC. In a large UK retrospective study of 2,588 IBD patients with PSC, the link reached only borderline statistical significance (22).
2.2 Endoscopy for detection of colorectal dysplasia and neoplasia: from high-definition white light endoscopy and chromoendoscopy to future perspectives
High-quality colonoscopy is essential for CRC and dysplasia screening or surveillance in CD. Adequate bowel cleanliness is a non-negotiable prerequisite (23, 24). Patients with IBD may use either high- or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), preferably in split regimens, which offer comparable efficacy (25). Oral sodium phosphate should be avoided as it may cause aphthous ulcers, potentially confounding inflammation assessment (26). Minimal or absent mucosal inflammation is another essential factor for high-quality surveillance, although often difficult to achieve in clinical practice (27), especially in patients with refractory disease.
High-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) offers better visualization of mucosal and glandular detail than standard-definition WLE and should be routinely available in IBD referral centers (28, 29). Chromoendoscopy enhances mucosal contrast and improves the visualization of superficial patterns and the vascular network. Dye-Based Chromoendoscopy (DCE) requires the application of staining agents, while virtual electronic chromoendoscopy (VEC) uses digital and optical filtering without dyes (30). Comparative data on these modalities in CD are lacking, as most studies focus on UC. A multicenter randomized controlled trial including both UC and CD patients found no difference in neoplasia detection between HD-WLE and VEC (i-Scan) (31). Other studies also found no differences among DCE, VEC, and HD-WLE for dysplasia detection in IBD (32, 33). A retrospective study on long-standing ileocolonic CD found similar dysplasia detection rates with VEC and DCE, although VEC significantly reduced withdrawal time (34). A recent meta-analysis of randomized trials (n=2,514) confirmed DCE’s superiority over SD-WLE, but found no statistical advantage over VEC. Notably, only a small portion of patients in the meta-analysis had CD, limiting the generalizability of findings (35) (Table 1). Nevertheless, many studies lack subgroup analyses for CD, likely due to small sample sizes (31, 36–38) (Table 1). Procedure duration is also a relevant consideration, with DCE significantly increasing exam time (39).
Table 1. Randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic techniques for colorectal neoplasia surveillance in IBD, including patients with Crohn’s disease.
Both HD-WLE and chromoendoscopy are useful for guiding biopsies. Although most studies focus on UC, some indicate that targeted biopsies using either HD-WLE or chromoendoscopy can be as effective as random biopsies in detecting dysplasia (40). However, a large prospective study of 1,000 IBD patients found that approximately 15% of neoplasia cases were detected via random biopsies after DCE (41). Thus, latest British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines suggested additional quadrantic mapping non-targeted biopsies every 10 cm or from each colonic segment for specific patient risk groups, including patients with PSC, a history of colonic dysplasia in the past 5 years and patients undergoing segmental colectomy (37).
Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in enhancing dysplasia detection, although current literature on its use in IBD patients is scanty, including only two original studies and one systematic review (42). Indeed, current AI devices for computer-aided detection and diagnosis perform worse in IBD settings, mainly because patients with IBD were specifically excluded from the datasets used to train these algorithms (37).
Ultra-magnification techniques like probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) and endocytoscopy allow for real-time or cellular-level imaging of colonic mucosa. A meta-analysis of nine studies using pCLE for in-vivo characterization of colonic lesions in IBD reported pooled sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 94%, and AUROC of 0.96 (43). However, the use of these modalities for neoplasia detection and characterization in IBD remains currently limited to research settings due to costs, procedural time, and required training (44).
2.3 Endoscopy for management of colorectal dysplasia and neoplasia
In CD, invisible dysplasia—dysplasia detected histologically without an identifiable lesion during endoscopy—requires careful reassessment. Once confirmed by expert histopathological review, patients should undergo HD endoscopic reevaluation, preferably at referral centers, to exclude subtle or previously overlooked lesions. Invisible dysplasia often reflects limitations of the initial exam, such as suboptimal bowel preparation or insufficient mucosal visualization (2, 29, 45). If confirmed and persistent despite advanced imaging, invisible dysplasia is generally an indication for colectomy due to the inability to target such lesions for endoscopic resection (46) and the risk of metachronous neoplasia (47). High-quality surveillance colonoscopy can detect most clinically relevant visible dysplasia and facilitate lesion characterization based on morphology (“The 5 S”: shape, size, site, surface, and surrounding mucosa) (48). Once a lesion is identified, it is essential to:
i. differentiate colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) from sporadic adenomas;
ii. assess whether en bloc resection is feasible (46);
iii. weigh the benefits and risks of endoscopic vs. surgical management within a multidisciplinary team (MTD) including endoscopists, gastroenterologists, and colorectal surgeons (49). Management should be individualized and referred to endoscopists with expertise in IBD-related dysplasia due to specific technical challenges: large non-pedunculated morphology, fibrosis, distorted submucosal planes, and surrounding inflammation (37). Both endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are valid approaches depending on lesion characteristics. A multicenter retrospective study evaluating distal cap-assisted EMR for adherent dysplastic lesions in IBD (12.5% CD) reported complete resection in 75% of cases, with no serious adverse events at 30-day follow-up (50). Underwater EMR (U-EMR) is a viable alternative for large, flat, or poorly lifting lesions, where submucosal fibrosis may limit conventional EMR. In a prospective study in UC patients, U-EMR achieved high en bloc and complete resection rates for lesions >20 mm, without increased perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome (51). ESD enables en bloc resection of larger non-polypoid lesions and may be preferred for non-lifting or superficially invasive lesions. A recent multicenter study of ESD and hybrid ESD for high-risk CAN reported an overall R0 resection rate of 85.4%. Outcomes were less favorable in CD than in UC (R0: 68.8% vs. 88.8%; adverse events: 25% vs. 10%) (52), highlighting the technical difficulties in CD linked to CD being a transmural disease with more submucosal fibrosis, leading to a higher rate of non-lifting polyps (52). A meta-analysis of 12 studies comprising 291 lesions showed en bloc resection in 92.5%, R0 in 81.5%, but a curative resection rate of only 48.9%, possibly due to advanced lesions (53). In contrast, a recent retrospective study of 82 IBD patients (19 with CD) reported a curative resection rate of 80% (54). Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), which enables transmural excision using an over-the-scope clip system, has emerged as an option for non-lifting or previously treated lesions in fibrotic or post-surgical colons. Though robust data are lacking, a recent case series demonstrated optimal R0 rates in anatomically challenging locations (55). EFTR is best suited for lesions ≤25–30 mm when other approaches are not feasible. Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice when endoscopic resection is incomplete, not technically feasible, or when histology shows high-risk features such as high-grade dysplasia or multifocality. According to recent BSG guidelines, patients undergoing endoscopic resection should receive a high-quality colonoscopy follow-up at 3–6 months, except for en bloc resection of <2 cm polypoid lesions with low-grade dysplasia, which may be followed up at 12 months. In cases of multifocal dysplasia, unresectable lesions, or multiple CRC risk factors, colectomy should be favored over continued surveillance (38) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Flowchart outlining the endoscopic management of dysplasia in Crohn’s colitis. EMR, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; U-EMR, Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; ESD, Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection; EFTR, Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection; HGD, High-Grade Dysplasia; MTD, Multidisciplinary Team.
3 Crohn’s disease and small bowel cancer
3.1 Epidemiology and risk factors
Small bowel cancer (SBC) is a rare malignancy, accounting for less than 5% of all GI cancers. Patients with CD are at increased risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) (4), as well as neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) and lymphoma. SBA is the most common form, with a 28-fold increased risk in CD and a poor prognosis (56). Despite this high relative risk, the absolute risk remains low—1.15 per 1,000 patients—with the ileum being the most frequently involved site (4, 57). Risk factors for SBC in CD include long disease duration, male sex, ileal or distal jejunal disease, strictures, penetrating disease, bypass loops, prior resections, and use of corticosteroids or immunomodulators (58). Conversely, small-bowel resection and aminosalicylate use appear protective (59). SBA has been associated with prior or synchronous ileal dysplasia, suggesting a dysplasia–adenocarcinoma sequence similar to the colon (60). Diagnosis is difficult; only 11% of cases show clear radiological signs, and symptoms often mimic a CD flare. Fewer than 5% of SBA cases are diagnosed preoperatively (61). For NENs, a population-based cohort study in Norway and Sweden of 142,008 IBD patients (10-year median follow-up) reported a 2.5-fold increased risk, especially in long-standing, stricturing or penetrating ileal disease (58, 61). A case-control study estimated the odds ratio (OR) for carcinoid tumors in CD at 14.9 (62). Unlike SBA, NENs are typically indolent, have favorable prognoses, and are often discovered incidentally (63). The incidence of small bowel lymphoma is also elevated in CD, with a 1.4–2-fold increase over the general population, though absolute risk is low (~0.26% over 10 years) (64). Literature remains inconclusive on whether the increased risk is due to immunosuppressants or IBD itself (65).
3.2 Endoscopy for detection of small bowel neoplasia: from small bowel capsule endoscopy and device assisted enteroscopy to future perspectives
No standardized surveillance protocols exist for SBC in CD. First, longitudinal studies assessing small bowel dysplasia and its progression to SBA are lacking. Second, the reduced accessibility of the small bowel and overlapping symptoms with inflammation make early diagnosis challenging. European guidelines recommend small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in patients at high risk for small-bowel tumors (66), such as those with unexplained iron-deficiency anemia or suspected metastases of unknown primary origin. Nonetheless, most SBCs are found during evaluation for obscure GI bleeding or anemia, and SBC is the cause in only 3.5–5% of these cases (67). In this context, SBCE shows superior diagnostic yield compared to push enteroscopy (68). Thus, ESGE guidelines—despite low evidence quality—recommend proceeding directly to SBCE unless there is risk of capsule retention (66). Balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) allows deep small bowel access for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, including biopsies and tattooing, with high rates of full small bowel examination using both oral and anal approaches (69). BAE is especially useful when imaging or SBCE identifies suspicious lesions, or for retrieving capsules and sampling inaccessible lesions (70–72). For primary surveillance, diagnostic performance data are limited due to low SBC incidence. However, in high-risk patients, SBCE or BAE may be considered. In a multicenter prospective study (73), 101 patients with long-standing ileal or jejunal CD underwent periodic upper/lower enteroscopy with DCE-guided and random biopsies. At one year, the prevalence of dysplasia or SBA was 4%, but the sensitivity of endoscopy for SBA was only 33%. Though rarely, small bowel dysplasia can be detected endoscopically (74), but current methods are inadequate for routine screening. Since SBC is often diagnosed intraoperatively in patients with long-standing stricturing CD (75), early surgical consideration may be more appropriate than prolonged medical management in this subgroup.
4 Discussion
Patients with Crohn’s colitis are at increased risk of CRC, although the risk varies substantially based on patient and disease characteristics. Despite confirmation by several meta-analyses, much of the available evidence derives from UC cohorts, limiting applicability to CD. As such, current prevention and surveillance strategies for CD are largely extrapolated from UC data, without adequately addressing CD’s distinct clinical, anatomical, and inflammatory features. GI endoscopy remains central for early dysplasia and CRC detection, but most comparative studies on endoscopic techniques include few CD patients, limiting evidence strength. Still, HD-WLE or VEC can be recommended as first-line tools for surveillance colonoscopy in colonic CD. DCE may be advantageous in high-risk or active disease due to VEC’s lower performance in inflamed mucosa. In such cases, random biopsies may enhance diagnostic yield. Advanced resection techniques—EMR, ESD, EFTR—have shown promise for managing dysplasia, though outcomes in CD appear less favorable than in UC, likely due to inflammation and fibrosis. These procedures should be reserved for selected patients and performed in specialized centers to optimize outcomes. CD-associated small bowel involvement substantially increases the risk of SBA, NENs, and lymphoma. Despite widespread use of imaging, SBCE, and BAE, early tumor diagnosis remains difficult. Current evidence does not support routine SBC surveillance, though high clinical suspicion is warranted with persistent or atypical symptoms. Early surgical evaluation should be considered in such contexts. Further prospective studies are urgently needed to guide individualized cancer prevention strategies in CD.
Author contributions
TP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GT: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AP: Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. IB: Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AA: Data curation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health, Current Research IRCCS. GT acknowledges funding from the Italian Ministry of Education and Research - MUR (‘Dipartimenti di Eccellenza’ Programme 2023–27 - Dept. of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. To revise the manuscript for fluency, clarity and grammar (see Supplementary File).
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgstr.2025.1626610/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Faye AS, Holmer AK, and Axelrad JE. Cancer in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Clinics North America. (2022) 51:649–66. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2022.05.003
2. Gordon H, Biancone L, Fiorino G, Katsanos KH, Kopylov U, Sulais A, et al. ECCO guidelines on inflammatory bowel disease and Malignancies. J Crohn’s colitis. (2023) 17:827–54. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac187
3. Jess T, Rungoe C, and Peyrin-Biroulet L. Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Clin Gastroenterol hepatology: Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterological Assoc. (2012) 10:639–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.01.010
4. Annese V. Small bowel adenocarcinoma in crohn’s disease: an underestimated risk? J Crohn’s colitis. (2020) 14:285–6. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz168
5. Gollop JH, Phillips SF, Melton LJ, and Zinsmeister AR. Epidemiologic aspects of Crohn’s disease: a population based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1943-1982. Gut. (1988) 29:49–56. doi: 10.1136/gut.29.1.49
6. Fireman Z, Grossman A, Lilos P, Hacohen D, Bar Meir S, Rozen P, et al. Intestinal cancer in patients with Crohn’s disease. A population study in central Israel. Scandinavian J Gastroenterol. (1989) 24:346–50. doi: 10.3109/00365528909093058
7. Persson PG, Karlén P, Bernell O, Leijonmarck CE, Broström O, Ahlbom A, et al. Crohn’s disease and cancer: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology. (1994) 107:1675–9. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(94)90807-9
8. Mellemkjaer L, Johansen C, Gridley G, Linet MS, Kjaer SK, and Olsen JH. Crohn’s disease and cancer risk (Denmark). Cancer causes control: CCC. (2000) 11:145–50. doi: 10.1023/a:1008988215904
9. Jess T, Gamborg M, Matzen P, Munkholm P, and Sørensen TI. Increased risk of intestinal cancer in Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Am J Gastroenterol. (2005) 100:2724–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00287.x
10. von Roon AC, Reese G, Teare J, Constantinides V, Darzi AW, and Tekkis PP. The risk of cancer in patients with Crohn’s disease. Dis colon rectum. (2007) 50:839–55. doi: 10.1007/s10350-006-0848-z
11. Choi CH, Ignjatovic-Wilson A, Askari A, Lee GH, Warusavitarne J, Moorghen M, et al. Low-grade dysplasia in ulcerative colitis: risk factors for developing high-grade dysplasia or colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. (2015) 110:1461–72. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.248
12. Lutgens MW, van Oijen MG, van der Heijden GJ, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD, and Oldenburg B. Declining risk of colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Inflammatory bowel Dis. (2013) 19:789–99. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0b013e31828029c0
13. Jess T, Loftus EV Jr, Velayos FS, Harmsen WS, Zinsmeister AR, Smyrk TC, et al. Risk of intestinal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study from olmsted county, Minnesota. Gastroenterology. (2006) 130:1039–46. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.12.037
14. Ekbom A, Helmick C, Zack M, and Adami HO. Increased risk of large-bowel cancer in Crohn’s disease with colonic involvement. Lancet (London England). (1990) 336:357–9. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)91889-i
15. Jess T, Winther KV, Munkholm P, Langholz E, and Binder V. Intestinal and extra-intestinal cancer in Crohn’s disease: follow-up of a population-based cohort in Copenhagen County, Denmark. Alimentary Pharmacol Ther. (2004) 19:287–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01858.x
16. Lakatos PL, David G, Pandur T, Erdelyi Z, Mester G, Balogh M, et al. Risk of colorectal cancer and small bowel adenocarcinoma in Crohn’s disease: a population-based study from western Hungary 1977-2008. J Crohn’s colitis. (2011) 5:122–8. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2010.11.005
17. Söderlund S, Granath F, Broström O, Karlén P, Löfberg R, Ekbom A, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease confers a lower risk of colorectal cancer to females than to males. Gastroenterology. (2010) 138:1697–703. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.02.007
18. Rubin DT, Huo D, Kinnucan JA, Sedrak MS, McCullom NE, Bunnag AP, et al. Inflammation is an independent risk factor for colonic neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis: a case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol hepatology: Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterological Assoc. (2013) 11:1601–8.e84. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.06.023
19. Mahmoud R, Shah SC, Ten Hove JR, Torres J, Mooiweer E, Castaneda D, et al. No association between pseudopolyps and colorectal neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology. (2019) 156:1333–1344.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.11.067
20. de Jong ME, Gillis VELM, Derikx LAAP, and Hoentjen F. No increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and postinflammatory polyps. Inflammatory bowel Dis. (2020) 26:1383–9. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izz261
21. Johansen MP, Wewer MD, Nordholm-Carstensen A, and Burisch J. Perianal crohn’s disease and the development of colorectal and anal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crohn’s colitis. (2023) 17:361–8. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac143ù
22. Trivedi PJ, Crothers H, Mytton J, Bosch S, Iqbal T, Ferguson J, et al. Effects of primary sclerosing cholangitis on risks of cancer and death in people with inflammatory bowel disease, based on sex, race, and age. Gastroenterology. (2020) 159:915–28. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.049
23. Te Groen M, Derks M, den Broeder N, Peters C, Dijkstra G, de Vries A, et al. Quality of surveillance impacts the colitis-associated advanced neoplasia risk: A multicenter case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol hepatology: Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterological Assoc. (2024) 22:357–367.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.010
24. De Cristofaro E, Marafini I, Mancone R, Fiorillo M, Franchin M, Mattogno A, et al. Preventable predictive factors of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohn’s colitis. (2025) 19:jjae115. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae115
25. Iacucci M, Cannatelli R, Tontini GE, Panaccione R, Danese S, Fiorino G, et al. Improving the quality of surveillance colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2019) 4:971–83. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30194-3
26. Watts DA, Lessells AM, Penman ID, and Ghosh S. Endoscopic and histologic features of sodium phosphate bowel preparation-induced colonic ulceration: case report and review. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. (2002) 55:584–7. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.122582
27. Iacucci M, Panaccione R, and Ghosh S. Advances in novel diagnostic endoscopic imaging techniques in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammatory bowel Dis. (2013) 19:873–80. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0b013e318280143f
28. Pessarelli T, Tontini GE, and Neumann H. Advanced endoscopic imaging for assessing mucosal healing and histologic remission in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastrointestinal endoscopy Clinics North America. (2025) 35:159–77. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2024.04.008
29. Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C, Hazewinkel Y, Kamiński MF, Neumann H, et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019. Endoscopy. (2019) 51:1155–79. doi: 10.1055/a-1031-7657
30. Kiesslich R and Neurath MF. Chromoendoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Clinics North America. (2012) 41:291–302. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2012.01.016
31. Kandiah K, Subramaniam S, Thayalasekaran S, Chedgy FJ, Longcroft-Wheaton G, Fogg C, et al. Multicentre randomised controlled trial on virtual chromoendoscopy in the detection of neoplasia during colitis surveillance high-definition colonoscopy (the VIRTUOSO trial). Gut. (2021) 70:1684–90. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320980
32. El-Dallal M, Chen Y, Lin Q, Rakowsky S, Sattler L, Foromera J, et al. Meta-analysis of virtual-based chromoendoscopy compared with dye-spraying chromoendoscopy standard and high-definition white light endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease at increased risk of colon cancer. Inflammatory bowel Dis. (2020) 26:1319–29. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izaa011
33. Feuerstein JD, Rakowsky S, Sattler L, Yadav A, Foromera J, Grossberg L, et al. Meta-analysis of dye-based chromoendoscopy compared with standard- and high-definition white-light endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease at increased risk of colon cancer. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. (2019) 90:186–195.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.219
34. López-Serrano A, Suárez MJ, Besó P, Algarra A, Latorre P, BarraChina MM, et al. Virtual chromoendoscopy with iSCAN as an alternative method to dye-spray chromoendoscopy for dysplasia detection in long-standing colonic inflammatory bowel disease: a case-control study. Scandinavian J Gastroenterol. (2021) 56:820–8. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2021.1925339
35. Huang CW, Yen HH, and Chen YY. Endoscopic techniques for colorectal neoplasia surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. United Eur Gastroenterol J. (2025). doi: 10.1002/ueg2.70017
36. Alexandersson B, Hamad Y, Andreasson A, Rubio CA, Ando Y, Tanaka K, et al. High-definition chromoendoscopy superior to high-definition white-light endoscopy in surveillance of inflammatory bowel diseases in a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol hepatology: Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterological Assoc. (2020) 18:2101–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.049
37. East JE, Gordon M, Nigam GB, Sinopoulou V, Bateman AC, Din S, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on colorectal surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. (2025). doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2025-335023
38. Mohamed MFH, Marino D, Elfert K, Beran A, Nayfeh T, Abdallah MA, et al. Dye chromoendoscopy outperforms high-definition white light endoscopy in dysplasia detection for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. (2024) 119:719–26. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002595
39. Jans A, Sinonquel P, Seerden TCJ, De Bodelier A, de Ridder R, Pierik MJ, et al. Dye-based chromoendoscopy versus i-scan virtual chromoendoscopy in long-standing ulcerative colitis: Multicenter prospective RCT. Endoscopy Int Open. (2024) 12:E1386–91. doi: 10.1055/a-2443-1080
40. Pal P, Pooja K, Nabi Z, Gupta R, Tandan M, Rao GV, et al. Artificial intelligence in endoscopy related to inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review. Indian J gastroenterology: Off J Indian Soc Gastroenterol. (2024) 43:172–87. doi: 10.1007/s12664-024-01531-3
41. Moussata D, Allez M, Cazals-Hatem D, Treton X, Laharie D, Reimund JM, et al. Are random biopsies still useful for the detection of neoplasia in patients with IBD undergoing surveillance colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy? Gut. (2018) 67:616–24. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311892
42. Zammarchi I, Santacroce G, and Iacucci M. Next-generation endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. Diagnostics (Basel Switzerland). (2023) 13:2547. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13152547
43. Lord R, Burr NE, Mohammed N, and Subramanian V. Colonic lesion characterization in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. (2018) 24:1167–80. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i10.1167
44. Buda A, Pessarelli T, Aldinio G, De Bona M, Iacucci M, and Tontini GE. Endoscopic healing in IBD: Still the target to achieve? Digestive liver disease: Off J Ital Soc Gastroenterol Ital Assoc Study Liver. (2025) 57(5):519-26. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2025.02.009
45. Deepak P, Hanson GJ, Fletcher JG, Tremaine WJ, Pardi DS, Kisiel JB, et al. Incremental diagnostic yield of chromoendoscopy and outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients with a history of colorectal dysplasia on white-light endoscopy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. (2016) 83:1005–12. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.021
46. Laine L, Kaltenbach T, Barkun A, McQuaid KR, Subramanian V, and Soetikno R. SCENIC international consensus statement on surveillance and management of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. (2015) 148:639–651.e28. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.01.031
47. Kabir M, Fofaria R, Arebi N, Bassett P, Tozer PJ, Hart AL, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: IBD-associated colonic dysplasia prognosis in the videoendoscopic era (1990 to present). Alimentary Pharmacol Ther. (2020) 52:5–19. doi: 10.1111/apt.15778
48. Adamina M, Feakins R, Iacucci M, Spinelli A, Cannatelli R, D’Hoore A, et al. ECCO topical review optimising reporting in surgery, endoscopy, and histopathology. J Crohn’s colitis. (2021) 15:1089–105. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab011
49. Tontini GE, Rath T, Pastorelli L, Vecchi M, and Neumann H. Surveillance strategies for colitis-associated cancer: state of the art and future perspectives. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2017) 11:427–37. doi: 10.1080/17474124.2017.1297705
50. Moyer MT, Leisgang AR, Kelly M, and Rex DK. Distal cap-assisted EMR allows the safe and effective resection of adherent dysplastic lesions in the setting of inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter retrospective study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. (2024) 100:1104–8. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2024.07.005
51. Takabayashi K, Kato M, Sasaki M, Iwao Y, Ogata H, Kanai T, et al. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for a sporadic adenoma located at severe longitudinal ulcer scars in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopy. (2022) 54:E30–1. doi: 10.1055/a-1368-3796
52. Maselli R, de Sire R, Barbaro F, Cecinato P, Andrisani G, Rosa-Rizzotto E, et al. Endoscopic Resection Italian Network (ERIN) Group (2025). Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for high-risk colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Endoscopy. 2025 57(6):658-66. doi: 10.1055/a-2524-3553
53. Malik TF, Sabesan V, Mohan BP, Rahman AU, Othman MO, Draganov PV, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin endoscopy. (2024) 57:317–28. doi: 10.5946/ce.2023.205
54. Geyl S, Jacques J, Anneraud A, Chaussade S, Abitbol V, Chevaux JB, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for visible dysplasia in IBD: A nationwide multicenter cohort from the GETAID and the SFED. J Crohn’s colitis. (2025) 19(5):jjaf057. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaf057
55. Khataniar H, Desai A, and Kochhar GS. Initial experience with safety and efficacy of endoscopic full-thickness resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A case series. ACG Case Rep J. (2024) 11:e01571. doi: 10.14309/crj.0000000000001571
56. Annese V, Beaugerie L, Egan L, Biancone L, Bolling C, Brandts C, et al. European evidence-based consensus: inflammatory bowel disease and Malignancies. J Crohn’s colitis. (2015) 9:945–65. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv141
57. Cahill C, Gordon PH, Petrucci A, and Boutros M. Small bowel adenocarcinoma and Crohn’s disease: any further ahead than 50 years ago? World J Gastroenterol. (2014) 20:11486–95. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i33.11486
58. Chin YH, Jain SR, Lee MH, Ng CH, Lin SY, Mai AS, et al. Small bowel adenocarcinoma in Crohn’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence, manifestation, histopathology, and outcomes. Int J colorectal Dis. (2022) 37:239–50. doi: 10.1007/s00384-021-04050-1
59. Laukoetter MG, Mennigen R, Hannig CM, Osada N, Rijcken E, Vowinkel T, et al. Intestinal cancer risk in Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. J gastrointestinal surgery: Off J Soc Surg Alimentary Tract. (2011) 15:576–83. doi: 10.1007/s11605-010-1402-9
60. Axelrad JE, Olén O, Sachs MC, Erichsen R, Pedersen L, Halfvarson J, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease and risk of small bowel cancer: a binational population-based cohort study from Denmark and Sweden. Gut. (2021) 70:297–308. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320945
61. Bojesen RD, Riis LB, Høgdall E, Nielsen OH, and Jess T. Inflammatory bowel disease and small bowel cancer risk, clinical characteristics, and histopathology: A population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol hepatology: Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterological Assoc. (2017) 15:1900–1907.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.051
62. West NE, Wise PE, Herline AJ, Muldoon RL, Chopp WV, and Schwartz DA. Carcinoid tumors are 15 times more common in patients with Crohn’s disease. Inflammatory bowel Dis. (2007) 13:1129–34. doi: 10.1002/ibd.20172
63. Yu J, Refsum E, Perrin V, Helsingen LM, Wieszczy P, Løberg M, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease and risk of adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors in the small bowel. Ann oncology: Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. (2022) 33:649–56. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.02.226
64. Siegel CA. Risk of lymphoma in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2009) 5:784–90.
65. Parian A and Lazarev M. Who and how to screen for cancer in at-risk inflammatory bowel disease patients. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2015) 9:731–46. doi: 10.1586/17474124.2015.1003208
66. Pennazio M, Rondonotti E, Despott EJ, Dray X, Keuchel M, Moreels T, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022. Endoscopy. (2023) 55:58–95. doi: 10.1055/a-1973-3796
67. Rondonotti E, Koulaouzidis A, Georgiou J, and Pennazio M. Small bowel tumours: update in diagnosis and management. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. (2018) 34:159–64. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000428
68. Segarajasingam DS, Hanley SC, Barkun AN, Waschke KA, Burtin P, Parent J, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes of video capsule endoscopy with push enteroscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2015) 29:85–90. doi: 10.1155/2015/897567
69. Tontini GE, Vecchi M, Neurath MF, and Neumann H. Advanced endoscopic imaging techniques in Crohn’s disease. J Crohn’s colitis. (2014) 8:261–9. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.004
70. Gao Y, Xin L, Wang YX, Dong YH, Liao Z, Li ZS, et al. Double-balloon enteroscopy for retrieving retained small-bowel video capsule endoscopes: a systematic review. Scandinavian J Gastroenterol. (2020) 55:105–13. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2019.1703036
71. Robles EP, Delgado PE, Conesa PB, Andrés BM, Guggiana MF, Mateos EA, et al. Role of double-balloon enteroscopy in Malignant small bowel tumors. World J gastrointestinal endoscopy. (2015) 7:652–8. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i6.652
72. Topa M, Nandi N, Scaramella L, Puricelli M, Pennazio M, Sidhu R, et al. Clinical impact of videocapsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy in non-bleeding small bowel lesions. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. (2023) 16:17562848231176424. doi: 10.1177/17562848231176424
73. Simon M, Cosnes J, Gornet JM, Seksik P, Stefanescu C, and Blain A. et alsimob (2017). Endoscopic detection of small bowel dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in crohn’s disease: A prospective cohort-study in high-risk patients. J Crohn’s colitis. (2017) 11(1):47–52. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw123
74. Watermeyer G, Locketz M, Govender D, and Mall A. Crohn’s disease-associated small bowel adenocarcinoma with pre-existing low-grade dysplasia: a case report. Am J Gastroenterol. (2007) 102:1545–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01166.x
75. Palascak-Juif V, Bouvier AM, Cosnes J, Flourié B, Bouché O, Cadiot G, et al. Small bowel adenocarcinoma in patients with Crohn’s disease compared with small bowel adenocarcinoma de novo. Inflammatory bowel Dis. (2005) 11:828–32. doi: 10.1097/01.mib.0000179211.03650.b6
76. González-Bernardo O, Riestra S, Vivas S, de Francisco R, Pérez-Martínez I, Castaño-García A, et al. Chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine vs virtual chromoendoscopy (iSCAN 1) for neoplasia screening in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A prospective randomized study. Inflammatory bowel Dis. (2021) 27:1256–62. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izaa291
77. Iacucci M, Kaplan GG, Panaccione R, Akinola O, Lethebe BC, Lowerison M, et al. A randomized trial comparing high definition colonoscopy alone with high definition dye spraying and electronic virtual chromoendoscopy for detection of colonic neoplastic lesions during IBD surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. (2018) 113:225–34. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2017.417
78. Pellisé M, López-Cerón M, Rodríguez de Miguel C, Jimeno M, Zabalza M, Ricart E, et al. Narrow-band imaging as an alternative to chromoendoscopy for the detection of dysplasia in long-standing inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. (2011) 74:840–8. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.05.013
Keywords: endoscopy and Crohn’s disease, colorectal neoplasia and Crohn’s disease, small bowel neoplasia and Crohn’s disease, cancer and Crohn’s disease, dysplasia and Crohn’s disease
Citation: Pessarelli T, Piagnani A, Tontini GE, Bergna IMB and Amato A (2025) Gastrointestinal endoscopy for intestinal dysplasia and neoplasia detection and management in Crohn’s disease: when and how? Front. Gastroenterol. 4:1626610. doi: 10.3389/fgstr.2025.1626610
Received: 11 May 2025; Accepted: 16 June 2025;
Published: 25 July 2025.
Edited by:
Glen A. Doherty, University College Dublin, IrelandReviewed by:
Sofia Silva Mendes, Braga Hospital, PortugalLuca De Luca, Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital, Italy
Copyright © 2025 Pessarelli, Piagnani, Tontini, Bergna and Amato. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Gian Eugenio Tontini, Z2lhbmV1Z2VuaW8udG9udGluaUB1bmltaS5pdA==
†ORCID: Tommaso Pessarelli, orcid.org/0000-0002-8817-144X
Gian Eugenio Tontini, orcid.org/0000-0002-8964-5686