Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The hypothesis that the high incidence of CRC in pathMLH1 carriers was caused by a higher incidence in the Finnish series was not valid. We discuss whether the results were influenced by methodological shortcomings in our study or whether the assumption that a shorter interval between colonoscopies leads to a lower CRC incidence may be wrong. This second possibility is intriguing, because it suggests the dogma that CRC in pathMLH1 carriers develops from polyps that can be detected at colonoscopy and removed to prevent CRC may be erroneous. In view of the excellent 10-year overall survival in the Finnish and non-Finnish series we remain strong advocates of current surveillance practices for those with LS pending studies that will inform new recommendations on the best surveillance interval.
Seppälä et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: