Search

The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 : ESGE recommends colonic stenting to be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and radiological signs of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation. ESGE does not recommend prophylactic stent placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends stenting as a bridge to surgery to be discussed, within a shared decision-making process, as a treatment option in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructing colon cancer as an alternative to emergency resection.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 : ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 : ESGE suggests consideration of colonic stenting for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon either as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative setting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 : ESGE suggests a time interval of approximately 2 weeks until resection when colonic stenting is performed as a bridge to elective surgery in patients with curable left-sided colon cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends that colonic stenting should be performed or directly supervised by an operator who can demonstrate competence in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performs colonic stenting on a regular basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that a decompressing stoma as a bridge to elective surgery is a valid option if the patient is not a candidate for colonic stenting or when stenting expertise is not available.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on guidelines for self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer. Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers globally especially in the economically developed world. Large-bowel obstruction caused by advanced colonic cancer occurs in in colonic cancer patients. The management of condition is controversial.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). This Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 Prophylactic colonic stent placement is not recommended. Colonic stenting should be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and imaging evidence of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 Colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery is not recommended as a standard treatment of symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 3 For patients with potentially curable but obstructing left-sided colonic cancer, stent placement may be considered as an alternative to emergency surgery in those who have an increased risk of postoperative mortality, I. e. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status ≥ III and/or age > 70 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 SEMS placement is recommended as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence), except in patients treated or considered for treatment with antiangiogenic drugs (e. g. bevacizumab) (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are considered useful techniques in the evaluation of pancreatic cysts. Aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic value of these techniques. Methods. This study included consecutive patients who underwent MRI, EUS, and EUS-FNA for a pancreatic cyst that was eventually resected surgically. Observers scored for cyst characteristics, a distinction between mucinous and non-mucinous cysts and a suspicion of malignancy. The interobserver agreement between MRI and EUS was calculated. Results. A total of 32 patients were included. Sensitivity for diagnosing a mucinous cyst was 78% for EUS versus 91% for MRI. Sensitivity for detecting malignancy was 25% (1/4) and 50% (2/4) for EUS and MRI respectively. Sensitivity of EUS-FNA for diagnosing a mucinous cyst (positive cytology and/or CEA >192 ng/ml) was 61%. Sensitivity for detecting malignancy (positive cytology) was 1/4 (25%). Interobserver agreement between MRI and EUS for the features was poor to fair. Conclusion. MRI and EUS are comparable techniques for the morphological characterization of pancreatic cysts. Combined sensitivity of EUS and MRI was higher than the sensitivity of one of the techniques alone. For diagnosing a mucinous cyst, FNA findings showed a low sensitivity, but a high specificity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery is an alternative for emergency surgery in patients with acute malignant colonic obstruction, but its benefits are uncertain. We aimed to establish whether colonic stenting has better health outcomes than does emergency surgery. Methods: Patients with acute obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer were enrolled from 25 hospitals in the Netherlands and randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery or emergency surgery. The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks and was stratified by centre; treatment allocation was concealed by use of a web-based application. Investigators and patients were unmasked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was mean global health status during a 6-month follow-up, which was assessed with the QL2 subscale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN46462267. Findings: Between March 9, 2007, and Aug 27, 2009, 98 patients were assigned to receive colonic stenting (n=47 patients) or emergency surgery (n=51). Two successive interim analyses showed increased 30-day morbidity in the colonic stenting group, with an absolute risk increase of 0·19 (95% CI −0·06 to 0·41) in analysis of the first 60 patients (14 of 28 patients receiving colonic stenting vs 10 of 32 receiving emergency surgery), and an absolute risk increase of 0·19 (−0·01 to 0·37) in analysis of the first 90 patients (23 of 47 patients vs 13 of 43). In accordance with the advice of the data safety monitoring committee, the study was suspended on Sept 18, 2009, and ended on March 12, 2010. At the final analysis of 98 patients, mean global health status during follow-up was 63·0 (SD 23·8) in the colonic stenting group and 61·4 (SD 21·9) in the emergency surgery group; after adjustment for baseline values, mean global health status did not differ between treatment groups (−4·7, 95% CI −14·8 to 5·5, p=0·36). No difference was recorded between treatment groups in 30-day mortality (absolute risk difference −0·01, 95% CI −0·14 to 0·12, p=0·89), overall mortality (−0·02, −0·17 to 0·14, p=0·84), morbidity (−0·08, −0·27 to 0·11, p=0·43), and stoma rates at latest follow-up (0·09, −0·10 to 0·27, p=0·35). However, the emergency surgery group had an increased stoma rate directly after initial intervention (0·23, 0·04 to 0·40, p=0·016) and a reduced frequency of stoma-related problems (between-group difference −12·0, −23·7 to −0·2, p=0·046). The most common serious adverse events were abscess (three in the colonic stenting group vs four in the emergency surgery group), perforations (six vs none), and anastomotic leakage (five vs one), and the most common adverse events were pneumonia (three vs one) and wound infection (one vs three). Interpretation: Colonic stenting has no decisive clinical advantages to emergency surgery. It could be used as an alternative treatment in as yet undefined subsets of patients, although with caution because of concerns about tumour spread caused by perforations. Funding: None. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective. Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is one of the late complications of a variety of malignancies. Palliation of symptoms of obstruction rather than cure is the primary aim of treatment in affected patients. Thus far prognostic information on life expectancy is lacking in these patients although it can be of importance when deciding upon their optimal treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether baseline data in patients with incurable GOO can independently predict survival. Patients and methods. In total, 105 consecutive patients with symptomatic GOO treated with duodenal stent placement were enrolled in this multicenter prospective observational study. Patients were followed until death or till 1 November 2008. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. Results. Baseline data of 101 patients were completed. At the time of analysis, 95% of patients had died; median overall survival was 82 days (75% alive at 36 days, 25% alive at 156 days). The final prediction model revealed the dichotomized WHO performance status (HR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.68–4.12, p < 0.001), prescription of morphines stronger than tramadol (HR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.38–4.25, p = 0.002) and pain score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00–1.01, p = 0.035) as independent significant prognostic factors for short survival. Conclusions. This study demonstrates clear predictors of poor outcome for patients presenting with symptomatic malignant GOO. The model may enhance the selection of optimal treatment for individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic pancreatitis is a progressive fibroinflammatory disease primarily caused by a complex interplay of environmental and genetic risk factors. It might result in pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, chronic pain, reduced quality of life, and increased mortality. The diagnosis is based on the presence of typical symptoms and multiple morphological manifestations of the pancreas, including pancreatic duct stones and strictures, parenchymal calcifications, and pseudocysts. Management of chronic pancreatitis consists of prevention and treatment of complications, requiring a multidisciplinary approach focusing on lifestyle modifications, exocrine insufficiency, nutritional status, bone health, endocrine insufficiency, pain management, and psychological care. To optimise clinical outcomes, screening for complications and evaluation of treatment efficacy are indicated in all patients with chronic pancreatitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the use of self-expandable metal stents in the surgery for elective malignant colonic obstruction. Topics discussed include patient with a potentially curable cancer, meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and the long term oncological outcomes of preoperative stent placement.

Treatment guidelines for splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis are lacking due to insufficient data on the full clinical spectrum. We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective necrotizing pancreatitis cohort. Multivariable analyses were used to identify risk factors and compare the clinical course of patients with and without SVT. SVT was detected in 97 of the 432 included patients (22%) (median onset: 4 days). Risk factors were left, central, or subtotal necrosis (OR 28.52; 95% CI 20.11–40.45), right or diffuse necrosis (OR 5.76; 95% CI 3.89–8.51), and younger age (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90–0.97). Patients with SVT had higher rates of bleeding (n = 10,11%) and bowel ischemia (n = 4,4%) compared to patients without SVT (n = 14,4% and n = 2,0.6%; OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.27–8.23 and OR 7.29; 95% CI 1.31–40.4, respectively), and were independently associated with ICU admission (adjusted OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.37–4.68). Spontaneous recanalization occurred in 62% of patients (n = 40/71). Radiological and clinical outcomes did not differ between patients treated with and without anticoagulants. SVT is a common and early complication of necrotizing pancreatitis, associated with parenchymal necrosis and younger age. SVT is associated with increased complications and a worse clinical course, whereas anticoagulant use does not appear to affect outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ESGE recommends that individuals with Lynch syndrome should be followed in dedicated units that practice monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends starting colonoscopy surveillance at the age of 25 years for MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers and at the age of 35 years for MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE recommends the routine use of high-definition endoscopy systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE suggests the use of chromoendoscopy may be of benefit in individuals with Lynch syndrome undergoing colonoscopy; however routine use must be balanced against costs, training, and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 89 %.ESGE recommends definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer as the presence of at least two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or at least one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer before the age of 50 years.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 92 %.ESGE recommends colonoscopy surveillance in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in families that fulfill the definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ESGE recommends that individuals with hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes should be surveilled in dedicated units that provide monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 90 %.ESGE recommends performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small-bowel examination, and/or colonoscopy earlier than the planned surveillance procedure if a patient is symptomatic. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Delineation variation of esophageal tumors remains a large source of geometric uncertainty. In the present study, we investigated the inter- and intra-observer variation in esophageal gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation and the impact of endoscopically implanted fiducial markers on these variations. Material/Methods: Ten esophageal cancer patients with at least two markers endoscopically implanted at the cranial and caudal tumor borders and visible on the planning computed tomography (pCT) were included in this study. Five dedicated gastrointestinal radiation oncologists independently delineated GTVs on the pCT without markers and with markers. The GTV was first delineated on pCTs where markers were digitally removed and next on the original pCT with markers. Both delineation series were executed twice to determine intra-observer variation. For both the inter- and intra-observer analyses, the generalized conformity index (CIgen), and the standard deviation (SD) of the distances between delineated surfaces (i.e., overall, longitudinal, and radial SDs) were calculated. Linear mixed-effect models were used to compare the without and with markers series (α = 0.05). Results: Both the inter- and intra-observer CIgen were significantly larger in the series with markers than in the series without markers (p <.001). For the series without markers vs. with markers, the inter-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.63 cm vs. 0.22 cm, 1.44 cm vs. 0.42 cm, and 0.26 cm vs. 0.18 cm, respectively (p <.05); moreover, the intra-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.45 cm vs. 0.26 cm, 1.10 cm vs. 0.41 cm, and 0.22 cm vs. 0.15 cm, respectively (p <.05). Conclusion: The presence of markers at the cranial and caudal tumor borders significantly reduced both inter- and intra-observer GTV delineation variation, especially in the longitudinal direction. Our results endorse the use of markers in GTV delineation for esophageal cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International guidelines on intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) recommend a formal oncological resection including splenectomy when distal pancreatectomy is indicated. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy in patients with presumed IPMN. Methods: An international, retrospective cohort study was undertaken in 14 high-volume centres from 7 countries including consecutive patients after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN (2005–2019). Patients were divided into spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS). The primary outcome was lymph node metastasis (LNM). Secondary outcomes were overall survival, duration of operation, blood loss, and secondary splenectomy. Results: Overall, 700 patients were included after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN; 123 underwent SPDP (17.6%) and 577 DPS (82.4%). The rate of malignancy was 29.6% (137 patients) and the overall rate of LNM 6.7% (47 patients). Patients with preoperative suspicion of malignancy had a LNM rate of 17.2% (23 of 134) versus 4.3% (23 of 539) among patients without suspected malignancy (P < 0.001). Overall, SPDP was associated with a shorter operating time (median 180 versus 226 min; P = 0.001), less blood loss (100 versus 336 ml; P = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (5 versus 8 days; P < 0.001). No significant difference in overall survival was observed between SPDP and DPS for IPMN after correction for prognostic factors (HR 0.50, 95% c.i. 0.22 to 1.18; P = 0.504). Conclusion: This international cohort study found LNM in 6.7% of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for IPMN. In patients without preoperative suspicion of malignancy, SPDP seemed oncologically safe and was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with DPS. Guidelines recommend splenectomy in patients requiring distal pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) as the safety of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) is unknown. Among 700 distal pancreatectomies for IPMN, lymph node metastases were present in 6.7% (47 patients) versus 4.3% of those without suspected malignancy. In patients without preoperative suspicion of malignancy, SPDP seemed oncologically safe and was associated with improved short-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition (EUS + TA) is used to provide a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Key performance indicators (KPI) for these procedures are rate of adequate sample (RAS) and sensitivity for malignancy (SFM). Aim: assess practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma in the Netherlands. Results of all EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma from 2014–2018, were extracted from the national Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were classified as: insufficient for analysis (b1), benign (b2), atypia (b3), neoplastic other (b4), suspected malignant (b5), and malignant (b6). RAS was defined as the proportion of EUS procedures yielding specimen sufficient for analysis. SFM was calculated using a strict definition (malignant only, SFM-b6), and a broader definition (SFM-b5+6). 691 out of 1638 resected patients (42%) underwent preoperative EUS + TA. RAS was 95% (range 89–100%), SFM-b6 was 44% (20–77%), and SFM-b5+6 was 65% (53–90%). All centers met the performance target RAS>85%. Only 9 out of 17 met the performance target SFM-b5+6 > 85%. This nationwide study detected significant practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA procedures prior to surgical resection of pancreatic carcinoma. Therefore, quality improvement of EUS + TA is indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims: Sealing esophageal leaks by stent placement allows healing in 44 % - 94 % of patients. We aimed to develop a prediction rule to predict the chance of successful stent therapy.Patients and Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, patients with benign upper gastrointestinal leakage treated with stent placement were included. We used logistic regression analysis including four known clinical predictors of stent therapy outcome. The model performance to predict successful stent therapy was evaluated in an independent validation sample.Results: We included etiology, location, C-reactive protein, and size of the leak as clinical predictors. The model was estimated from 145 patients (derivation sample), and 59 patients were included in the validation sample. Stent therapy was successful in 55.9 % and 67.8 % of cases, respectively. The predicted probability of successful stent therapy was significantly higher in success patients compared with failure patients in both the derivation (P < 0.001) and validation (P < 0.001) samples. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 74.1 % in the derivation sample and 84.7 % in the validation sample. When the model predicted ≥ 70 % chance of success, the positive predictive value was 79 % in the derivation sample and 87 % in the validation sample. When the model predicted ≤ 50 % chance of success, the negative predictive value was 64 % and 86 %, respectively.Conclusions: This prediction rule, consisting of four clinical predictors, could identify patients with esophageal leaks who were likely to benefit from or fail on stent therapy. The prediction rule can support clinical decision-making when the predicted probability of success is ≥ 70 % or ≤ 50 %. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has increased, necessitating histopathologic confirmation of cancer. This study evaluates the performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition (TA) procedures for borderline resectable and resectable PDAC. Pathology reports of patients included in two nationwide randomized controlled trials (PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2) were reviewed. The primary outcome was sensitivity for malignancy (SFM), considering both "suspicious for" and "malignant" as positive. Secondary outcomes were rate of adequate sampling (RAS) and diagnoses other than PDAC. Overall, 892 endoscopic procedures were performed in 617 patients, including endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided TA in 550 (89.1%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided brush cytology in 188 (30.5%), and periampullary biopsies in 61 patients (9.9%). The SFM was 85.2% for EUS, 88.2% for repeat EUS, 52.7% for ERCP, and 37.7% for periampullary biopsies. The RAS ranged 94–100%. Diagnoses other than PDAC were other periampullary cancers in 24 (5.4%), premalignant disease in five (1.1%), and pancreatitis in three patients (0.7%). EUS-guided TA of patients with borderline resectable and resectable PDAC included in RCTs had an SFM above 85% for both first and repeat procedures, meeting international standards. Two percent had false positive result for malignancy and 5% had other (non-PDAC) periampullary cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a gastrointestinal procedure that requires a relatively motionless patient during the intervention. Deep sedation by intravenous propofol combined with an opioid has recently become the preferred sedation technique. However, when high doses of propofol are used, side effects, namely respiratory depression, may occur. Esketamine has hypnotic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic effects. Our assumption is that a combination of propofol with esketamine reduces the dosage of individual drugs, thereby minimizing sedation side effects while keeping the same satisfaction level of patients and endoscopists.Methods/design: The study will be performed as a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Patients undergoing ERCP, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-III will be randomized after written informed consent to group K (propofol/esketamine) or to group A (propofol/alfentanil). The primary outcome, reflecting effectiveness of sedation, is the total dose of propofol. Secondary outcome parameters are patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction with the procedure and the number of sedation-related pulmonary and cardiovascular events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiratory rate (RR), end-tidal CO2 (etCO2), heart rate (HR), arrhythmias (electrocardiogram (ECG)), and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements. Satisfaction parameters are collected by means of questionnaires before and after the procedure and on the following day.Discussion: Esketamine is known for its effective anesthetic and analgesic effects maintaining spontaneous breathing and airway reflexes. Due to an increase in sympathetic tone, hypotension and cardiac depression is less common. Unfortunately esketamine is also known for its psychotomimetic effects. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to ERCP interventions is nevertheless superior to a combination of propofol with an opioid.Trial Registration: Nederland's Trial Register, NTR5486 . Registered on 17 September 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary brush cytology is commonly used to diagnose malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. This trial compared the sensitivity of two intraductal brush cytology devices. Methods: A randomized controlled trial in which consecutive patients with suspected malignant, extrahepatic biliary strictures were randomized (1:1) to a dense or conventional brush cytology device. Primary endpoint was sensitivity. Interim analysis was conducted after 50% of the patients completed follow-up. Results were interpreted by a data safety monitoring board. Results: Between June 2016 and June 2021, 64 patients were randomized to the dense (27 patients, 42%) or conventional brush (37 patients, 58%). Malignancy was diagnosed in 60 patients (94%) and benign disease in 4 patients (6%). Diagnoses were confirmed by histopathology in 34 patients (53%), cytopathology in 24 patients (38%), and clinical or radiological follow up in 6 patients (9%). Sensitivity of the dense brush was 50%, compared to 44% for the conventional brush (p = 0·785). Discussion: The results of this randomized controlled trial showed that the sensitivity of a dense brush is not superior to a conventional brush for diagnosing malignant extrahepatic pancreatobiliary strictures. This trial was prematurely ended for reasons of futility. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register number; NTR5458. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More accurate diagnosis of mucinous cysts will reduce the risk of unnecessary pancreatic surgery. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and glucose in pancreatic cyst fluid (PCF) can differentiate mucinous from non-mucinous pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN). The current study assessed the value of combined CEA and glucose testing in PCF. Methods: Cross-sectional validation study including prospectively collected PCF from patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and pancreatic surgery. We performed laboratory measurements for CEA and glucose and measured glucose levels by a hand glucometer. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy evaluated by receiver operator curves (ROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV). Results: Overall, PCF was collected from 63 patients, including 33 (52%) with mucinous and 30 (48%) with non-mucinous PCN. Histopathology (n = 36; 57%), cytopathology (n = 2; 3%), or clinical and/or radiological diagnosis (n = 25; 40%) was used as reference standard. Combined CEA (cut-off ≥ 192 ng/ml) and laboratory glucose testing (cut-off ≤ 50 mg/dL) reached 92% specificity and 48% sensitivity, whereas either positive CEA (cut-off ≥ 20 ng/ml) or glucose testing (cut-off ≤ 50 mg/dL) showed 97% sensitivity and 50% specificity. Sensitivity and specificity were 80% and 68% for CEA ≥ 20 ng/mL versus 50% and 93% for CEA ≥ 192 ng/mL (the conventional cut-off level). Laboratory and glucometer glucose both reached 100% sensitivity and 60% and 45% specificity, respectively. None of the biomarkers and cut-offs reached a PPV exceeding 90%, whereas both glucose measurements had a NPV of 100% (i.e., high glucose excludes a mucinous cyst). Conclusion: Combined CEA and glucose testing in PCF reached high specificity and sensitivity for differentiating mucinous from non-mucinous PCN. Glucose testing, whether alone or combined with the new CEA cut-off (≥ 20 ng/mL), reached > 95% sensitivity for mucinous cysts, whereas only glucose reached a NPV > 95%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cervical anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy cause significant disease burden. We aimed to study the technical feasibility and safety of intensive endoscopic therapy. Methods: In this pilot study, we included 15 patients with an untreated benign cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. Intensive endoscopic therapy comprised three endoscopic modalities: in- and excision using a needle-knife, intralesional steroid injections and bougie dilation. In two endoscopic procedures, the stricture was dilated up to a luminal diameter of 18 mm. Patients were followed up to 6 months. Results: A luminal diameter of 18 mm was achieved in 13 of 15 patients (87%) after two endoscopic procedures. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment occurred. Median dysphagia scores significantly improved from 2 (IQR, interquartile range, 2–3) at baseline to 0 (IQR 0–1) after 14 days (p < 0.001). Eleven (73%) patients developed recurrent symptoms of dysphagia requiring a median of 1 (IQR 0–3) additional endoscopic dilation procedure. Conclusions: Achieving a luminal diameter of 18 mm in two procedures with intensive endoscopic therapy was technically feasible and effective in reducing dysphagia rapidly in patients with a cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Targeted molecular imaging may improve tumor cell identification during diagnosis and resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Although many molecular imaging biomarkers are (over)expressed in PDAC, intertumoral heterogeneity of biomarker expression hampers universal tracer administration. Preoperative, patient-specific screening and selection of the most optimal biomarker could therefore improve tumor delineation. Objective: This study evaluated whether fine-needle biopsy (FNB) specimens could be used to preoperatively predict biomarker expression in the corresponding primary PDAC specimen. Methods: Expression of previously identified PDAC biomarkers αvβ6, CEACAM5, EGFR, mesothelin, Lea/c/x, and sdi-Lea on FNB and corresponding primary tumor (PT) specimens (n = 45) was evaluated using immunohistochemistry and quantified using a semi-automated image analysis workflow. Results: Biomarker expression on FNB and PT tissues showed high concordance (∆H-score ≤ 50), i.e. was present in 62% of cases for αvβ6, 61% for CEACAM5, 85% for EGFR, 69% for mesothelin, 76% for Lea/c/x, and 79% for sdi-Lea, indicating high concordance. Except for αvβ6, biomarker expression on FNB tissues was positively correlated with PT expression for all biomarkers. Subgroup analyses showed that neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) had no major and/or significant effect on concordance, expression difference and, except for mesothelin, correlation of biomarker expression between FNB and PT tissues. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that biomarker expression in FNB tissues is predictive for PT expression, irrespective of the application of NAT. These findings thereby provide the foundation for the clinical application of an FNB-based biomarker-screening workflow, eventually facilitating a patient-specific approach of molecular imaging tracer administration in PDAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis ERCP is negative. This is undesirable because of ERCP associated morbidity. We aimed to map the diagnostic pathway leading up to ERCP and evaluate ERCP outcome. Methods: We established a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with suspected CBD stones. We assessed the determinants that were associated with CBD sludge or stone detection upon ERCP. Results: We established a cohort of 707 patients with suspected CBD sludge or stones (62% female, median age 59 years). ERCP was negative for CBD sludge or stones in 155 patients (22%). Patients with positive ERCPs frequently had pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging (44% vs. 35%; P = 0.045). The likelihood of ERCP sludge and stones detection was higher when the time interval between EUS or MRCP and ERCP was less than 2 days (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI 1.25–4.44; P = 0.008; number needed to harm 7.7). Conclusions: Even in the current era of society guidelines and use of advanced imaging CBD sludge or stones are absent in one out of five ERCPs performed for suspected CBD stones. The proportion of unnecessary ERCPs is lower in case of pre-procedural EUS or MRCP. A shorter time interval between EUS or MRCP increases the yield of ERCP for suspected CBD stones and should, therefore, preferably be performed within 2 days before ERCP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an inflammatory disease that may be complicated by abdominal pain, pancreatic dysfunction, nutritional deficiencies, and diminished bone density. Importantly, it is also associated with a substantially impaired quality of life and reduced life expectancy. This may partly be explained by suboptimal treatment, in particular the long-term management of this chronic condition, despite several national and international guidelines. Standardization of care through a structured implementation of guideline recommendations may improve the level of care and lower the complication rate of these patients. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to evaluate to what extent patient education and standardization of care, through the implementation of an evidence-based integrated management algorithm, improve quality of life and reduce pain severity in patients with CP. Methods: The COMBO trial is a nationwide stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. In a stepwise manner, 26 centers, clustered in 6 health regions, cross-over from current practice to care according to an evidence-based integrated management algorithm. During the current practice phase, study participants are recruited and followed longitudinally through questionnaires. Individual patients contribute data to both study periods. Co-primary study endpoints consist of quality of life (assessed by the PANQOLI score) and level of pain (assessed by the Izbicki questionnaire). Secondary outcomes include process measure outcomes, clinical outcomes (e.g., pancreatic function, nutritional status, bone health, interventions, medication use), utilization of healthcare resources, (in) direct costs, and the level of social participation. Standard follow-up is 35 months from the start of the trial. Discussion: This is the first stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial to investigate whether an evidence-based integrated therapeutic approach improves quality of life and pain severity in patients with CP as compared with current practice. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13042622. Registered on 5 September 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner. Results: In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3–11.4%; I2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4–9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19–39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p < 0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3–11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7–16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2–11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1–4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7–49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3–11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2–6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9–51.2%). Conclusions: Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To characterize the prevalence of missed pancreatic masses and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)-related findings on CT and MRI between pre-diagnostic patients and healthy individuals. Materials and methods: Patients diagnosed with PDAC (2010–2016) were retrospectively reviewed for abdominal CT- or MRI-examinations 1 month—3 years prior to their diagnosis, and subsequently matched to controls in a 1:4 ratio. Two blinded radiologists scored each imaging exam on the presence of a pancreatic mass and secondary features of PDAC. Additionally, original radiology reports were graded based on the revised RADPEER criteria. Results: The cohort of 595 PDAC patients contained 60 patients with a pre-diagnostic CT and 27 with an MRI. A pancreatic mass was suspected in hindsight on CT in 51.7% and 50% of cases and in 1.3% and 0.9% of controls by reviewer 1 (p <.001) and reviewer 2 (p <.001), respectively. On MRI, a mass was suspected in 70.4% and 55.6% of cases and 2.9% and 0% of the controls by reviewer 1 (p <.001) and reviewer 2 (p <.001), respectively. Pancreatic duct dilation, duct interruption, focal atrophy, and features of acute pancreatitis is strongly associated with PDAC (p <.001). In cases, a RADPEER-score of 2 or 3 was assigned to 56.3% of the CT-reports and 71.4% of MRI-reports. Conclusion: Radiological features as pancreatic duct dilation and interruption, and focal atrophy are common first signs of PDAC and are often missed or unrecognized. Further investigation with dedicated pancreas imaging is warranted in patients with PDAC-related radiological findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: The prematurely closed Stent-In II trial in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer may have influenced clinical decision making in The Netherlands. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment of left-sided malignant colon obstruction at a population level since then. Methods: Short-term outcomes of all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructive colon cancer between 2009 and 2012 were assessed based on a prospective national registry. Results: In total, 1,816 evaluable patients were included; acute resection was performed in 1,485 (81.8%), and endoscopic stent or decompressing stoma followed by resection in 196 (10.8%) and 135 (7.4%), respectively. The use of endoscopic stenting significantly decreased from 18% (2009) to 6% (2012). Overall 30-day or in-hospital mortality rate was 6.9, 5.6, and 3.7%, respectively (p = 0.107). Mortality rate after acute resection was 2.9% in patients >70 years, but mortality rates up to 32.2% were observed in high-risk elderly patients. Conclusion: Acute resection as first choice treatment seems justified for patients >70 years of age given a mortality rate of 3%. For the elderly frail patients, mortality rates over 30% after acute resection stress the need for alternative treatment strategies. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated adverse events (AE) after same session ERCP and EUS-TA. Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement from January 2015 to April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was post-procedural pancreatitis (PPP). Secondary outcomes were other procedure-related AE. We included 494 patients, of which 118 patients (24%) underwent same session EUS-TA+ERCP, 51 patients (10%) underwent separate session EUS-TA & ERCP, 90 patients (18%) ERCP-only and 235 patients (48%) EUS-TA only. PPP occurred in 22 patients (19%) after same session EUS-TA+ERCP and in 6 patients (12%) after separate EUS-TA & ERCP (p = 0.270). When adjusted for other known risk factors (i.e., difficult procedure), the difference in PPP remained non-significant (adjusted odds ratio 1.74 (95%-CI 0.65–4.67, p = 0.268). The incidence of other AE was similar, although the overall AE rate was significantly higher after same session EUS-TA+ERCP (36% vs. 20%, p = 0.030). Same session EUS-TA+ERCP did not significantly increase the incidence of PPP, although overall AE were significantly higher. These data warrant further prospective studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis, even in patients that can be surgically treated with curative intent. An interesting subgroup of resected pancreatic cancers are those associated with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN), since overall survival might differ from pancreatic cancer not associated with PCN. Although several single-center studies published conflicting data on this topic, nationwide studies are lacking. In this nationwide, registry-based study, we aimed to compare the overall survival between patients with PCN-associated pancreatic cancers to those with pancreatic cancer not associated with PCN. We found that 12% of resected pancreatic cancers patients were PCN-associated. Overall survival was better in patients with PCN-associated pancreatic cancer as compared to those not associated with PCN. Future prospective studies should focus on the impact of these findings, such as the impact of (neo)adjuvant treatment regimens in this specific patient group. Background: Outcome after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma associated with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN-PDAC) might differ from PDAC not associated with PCN. This nationwide, registry-based study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS) in these patients. Methods: Data from consecutive patients after pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2013 and 2018 were matched with the corresponding pathology reports. Primary outcome was OS for PCN-PDAC and PDAC including 1-year and 5-year OS. Cox regression analysis was used to correct for prognostic factors (e.g., pT-stage, pN-stage, and vascular invasion). Results: In total, 1994 patients underwent resection for PDAC including 233 (12%) with PCN-PDAC. Median estimated OS was better in patients with PCN-PDAC (34.5 months [95%CI 25.6 to 43.5]) as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN (18.2 months [95%CI 17.3 to 19.2]; hazard ratio 0.53 [95%CI 0.44–0.63]; p < 0.001). The difference in OS remained after correction for prognostic factors (adjusted hazard ratio 1.58 [95%CI 1.32−1.90]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This nationwide registry-based study showed that 12% of resected PDAC were PCN-associated. Patients with PCN-PDAC had better OS as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of pancreatic body and tail lesions is underexposed. It remains unclear whether endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) increases the accuracy of the preoperative workup. This study assessed the diagnostic value and safety of EUS in addition to cross-sectional imaging in a surgical cohort of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. The composite primary outcome was the additional value of EUS, defined as: (a) EUS confirmed an uncertain diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging, (b) EUS was correct in case of discrepancy with cross-sectional imaging, or (c) EUS provided tissue diagnosis for neoadjuvant treatment. Furthermore, serious adverse events and needle tract seeding were assessed. In total, 181 patients were included, of whom 123 (68%) underwent EUS besides cross-sectional imaging. Postoperative pathology was heterogeneous: 91 was malignant, 49 premalignant, 41 benign. Most lesions were solid (n = 117). EUS had additional value in 59/123 (48%) patients; 27/50 (54%) of cystic and 32/73 (44%) of solid lesions. No serious adverse event or needle tract seeding following EUS occurred. EUS had additional value besides cross-sectional imaging in half of the patients and showed low associated risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgery is the most effective treatment in patients with painful chronic pancreatitis and a dilated pancreatic duct. Studies reporting the outcomes of selected surgical approach according to the pancreatic head size in these patients are lacking. Method: This was a retrospective, observational single-centre study of consecutive patients who underwent either a Frey procedure or extended lateral pancreaticojejunostomy (eLPJ) for pain due to chronic pancreatitis with a dilated main pancreatic duct (5mm or more) between 2006 and 2017. A Frey procedure was used in patients with pancreatic head enlargement (40mm or more) and eLPJ (full-length pancreaticojejunostomy, including transection of the gastroduodenal artery) in others. A biliodigestive bypass was added in the case of biliary obstruction. Results: Overall, 140 of 220 patients met the eligibility criteria: 70 underwent a Frey procedure and 70 an eLPJ. Hepaticojejunostomy was added in 17.1 per cent of patients (Frey: 24.3 per cent; eLPJ: 10.0 per cent (P=0.025)). Major morbidity occurred in 15.0 per cent of patients (Frey: 21.4 per cent; eLPJ: 8.6 per cent (P=0.033)). After a median 7.8 years of follow-up, the mean (s.d.) decrease in Izbicki pain score was 33 (27) points (34 (28) points after a Frey procedure; 32 (26) points after an eLPJ). Pain relief was reported as 'very much' by 87.5 per cent of patients (Frey: 86.1 per cent; eLPJ: 88.9 per cent) and as 'partial' by 11.1 per cent (Frey: 13.8 per cent; eLPJ: 8.3 per cent). Conclusion: Selective-use of either a Frey procedure or eLPJ in patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis was-associated with low morbidity and long-term pain relief. Adding a-biliodigestive bypass did not increase morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1:  ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pancreatic duct stenting, and intensive intravenous hydration have been proven to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Trial participation and guideline changes demanded an assessment of the clinical practice of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis. Aims: The surveys aim to identify points of improvement to inform and educate ERCPists about current evidence-based practice. Methods: Two anonymous surveys were conducted among Dutch gastroenterologists in 2013 (n = 408) and 2020 (n = 575) for longitudinal views and attitudes pertaining to post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis and recognition of post-ERCP pancreatitis risk factors. Results: In 2013 and 2020, respectively, 121 and 109 ERCPists responded. In the 2013 survey, 98% of them utilized NSAID prophylaxis and 62% pancreatic duct stent prophylaxis in specific cases. In the 2020 survey, the use of NSAIDs (100%), pancreatic duct stents (78%), and intensive intravenous hydration (33%) increased among ERCPists. NSAID prophylaxis was the preferred prophylactic measure for all risk factors in the 2020 survey, except for ampullectomy, pancreatic duct contrast injection, and pancreatic duct cannulation, for which NSAID prophylaxis and pancreatic duct stent combined was equally favored or preferred. Conclusion: Rectal NSAIDs are the most applied post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis in the Netherlands, followed by pancreatic duct stents and intensive intravenous hydration. Additionally, there is reason to believe that recent guideline updates and active research participation have led to increased prophylaxis implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE suggests performing segmental biopsies (at least two from each segment), which should be placed in different specimen containers (ileum, cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and rectum) in patients with clinical and endoscopic signs of colitis.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends taking two biopsies from the right hemicolon (ascending and transverse colon) and, in a separate container, two biopsies from the left hemicolon (descending and sigmoid colon) when microscopic colitis is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends pancolonic dye-based chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies of any visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that, in high risk patients with a history of colonic neoplasia, tubular-appearing colon, strictures, ongoing therapy-refractory inflammation, or primary sclerosing cholangitis, chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies can be combined with four-quadrant non-targeted biopsies every 10 cm along the colon. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, if pouch surveillance for dysplasia is performed, visible abnormalities should be biopsied, with at least two biopsies systematically taken from each of the afferent ileal loop, the efferent blind loop, the pouch, and the anorectal cuff.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends that, in patients with known ulcerative colitis and endoscopic signs of inflammation, at least two biopsies be obtained from the worst affected areas for the assessment of activity or the presence of cytomegalovirus; for those with no evident endoscopic signs of inflammation, advanced imaging technologies may be useful in identifying areas for targeted biopsies to assess histologic remission if this would have therapeutic consequences. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 7: ESGE suggests not biopsying endoscopically visible inflammation or normal-appearing mucosa to assess disease activity in known Crohn's disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that adequately assessed colorectal polyps that are judged to be premalignant should be fully excised rather than biopsied.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that, where endoscopically feasible, potentially malignant colorectal polyps should be excised en bloc rather than being biopsied. If the endoscopist cannot confidently perform en bloc excision at that time, careful representative images (rather than biopsies) should be taken of the potential focus of cancer, and the patient should be rescheduled or referred to an expert center.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that, in malignant lesions not amenable to endoscopic excision owing to deep invasion, six carefully targeted biopsies should be taken from the potential focus of cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the stroma marker A Disintegrin And Metalloprotease 12 (ADAM12) as a preoperative prognostic and treatment-predictive marker for overall survival (OS) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and periampullary cancers. Materials were derived from the prospective nationwide Dutch Pancreas Biobank (2015–2017). We included patients who underwent resection because of PDAC/periampullary cancer or non-invasive IPMN (control group) and had a preoperative serum sample available. ADAM12 levels were dichotomized using a pre-defined cut-off (316 pg/mL). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses (backward selection) were performed. Median ADAM12 levels were 161 (IQR 79–352) pg/mL in 215 PDAC and periampullary adenocarcinomas. High ADAM12 levels (>316 pg/mL) predicted poor OS in the total group of pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas (P = 0.04), but not after adjustment. In distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 33), high ADAM12 levels predicted poor OS in univariable analysis (P = 0.02), but not in PDAC (P = 0.63). PDAC patients (n = 135) with high ADAM12 levels benefited from adjuvant treatment (median OS 27 vs 14 months, P = 0.02), whereas those with low levels did not (21 vs 21 months, P = 0.87). High circulating ADAM12 levels, as a proxy for activated stroma, predict survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in PDAC, requiring validation in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is considered a relatively safe and minimally invasive treatment for papillary adenomas. In the literature a significant risk for local recurrence is described. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term recurrence rates and time-to-recurrence. Additionally, risk factors for recurrence, malignancy and adverse events were studied.Methods: This is a retrospective study in consecutive patients with papillary adenomas who underwent EP in two tertiary referral hospitals between 2001 and 2018. Primary outcome was recurrence in patients with at least 1-year endoscopic follow-up. Secondary outcomes were surgery free survival, adverse events, and mortality within 30 days after the index procedure.Results: A total of 259 patients were found eligible [median age 66 years, 130 male (50.2%)]. Forty-three patients were known with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) (16.6%). At least 1-year endoscopic follow-up was available in 154 patients with a total follow-up of 586 person-years and median of 40 months [interquartile range (IQR) 25-75]. Recurrence occurred in 24 cases (15.6%) of which 8 were known with FAP, leading to a recurrence incidence rate of 4.1 per 100 person-years with a median time-to-recurrence of 29 months (IQR 14.75-59.5). Fifty-three patients underwent at least 5-year follow-up, in 6 (11.3%) of them recurrence was encountered after 5 years of which four were known with FAP. No risk factors for recurrence could be identified. Adverse events occurred in 50/259 patients (19.3%). One patient died within 30 days after the procedure. Papillary stenosis occurred in 19/259 (7.3%) of the patients. There were no cases of malignant degeneration during follow-up.Conclusions: Recurrence after EP occurs in a significant proportion of patients and occurs even 5 years after EP. This emphasizes the need for long-term follow-up. We advise to consider at least 5-year follow-up in case of a sporadic adenoma, unless comorbidity makes follow-up clinically irrelevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data regarding long-term quality of life and exocrine and endocrine insufficiency after pancreatic surgery for premalignant and benign (non-pancreatitis) disease are lacking. This cross-sectional study included patients ≥3 years after pancreatoduodenectomy or left pancreatectomy in six Dutch centers (2006–2016). Outcomes were measured with the EQ-5D-5L, the EORTC QLQ-C30, an exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency questionnaire, and PAID20. Questionnaires were completed by 153/183 patients (response rate 84%, median follow-up 6.3 years). Surgery related complaints were reported by 72/153 patients (47%) and 13 patients (8.4%) would not undergo this procedure again. The VAS (EQ-5D-5L) was 76 ± 17 versus 82 ± 0.4 in the general population (p < 0.001). The mean global health status (QLQ-C30) was 78 ± 17 versus 78 ± 17, p = 1.000. Fatigue, insomnia, and diarrhea were clinically relevantly worse in patients. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency was reported by 62 patients (41%) with relieve of symptoms by enzyme supplementation in 48%. New-onset diabetes mellitus was present in 22 patients (14%). The median PAID20 score was 6.9/20 (IQR 2.5–17.8). Although generic quality of life after pancreatic resection for pre-malignant and benign disease was similar to the general population and diabetes-related distress was low, almost half suffered from a range of symptoms highlighting the need for long-term counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:  The optimal timing of resection after decompression of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is unknown. Revised expert-based guideline recommendations have shifted from an interval of 5 - 10 days to approximately 2 weeks following self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement, and recommendations after decompressing stoma are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the recommended bridging intervals after SEMS and explore the timing of resection after decompressing stoma.Methods:  This nationwide study included patients registered between 2009 and 2016 in the prospective, mandatory Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Additional data were collected through patient records in 75 hospitals. Only patients who underwent either SEMS placement or decompressing stoma as a bridge to surgery were selected. Technical SEMS failure and unsuccessful decompression within 48 hours were exclusion criteria.Results:  510 patients were included (182 SEMS, 328 decompressing stoma). Median bridging interval was 23 days (interquartile range [IQR] 13 - 31) for SEMS and 36 days (IQR 22 - 65) for decompressing stoma. Following SEMS placement, no significant differences in post-resection complications, hospital stay, or laparoscopic resections were observed with resection after 11 - 17 days compared with 5 - 10 days. Of SEMS-related complications, 48 % occurred in patients operated on beyond 17 days. Compared with resection within 14 days, an interval of 14 - 28 days following decompressing stoma resulted in significantly more laparoscopic resections, more primary anastomoses, and shorter hospital stays. No impact of bridging interval on mortality, disease-free survival, or overall survival was demonstrated.Conclusions:  Based on an overview of the data with balancing of surgical outcomes and timing of adverse events, a bridging interval of approximately 2 weeks seems appropriate after SEMS placement, while waiting 2 - 4 weeks after decompressing stoma further optimizes surgical conditions for laparoscopic resection with restoration of bowel continuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7-9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10: ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is dedicated to improving the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy, including through educational activities such as live endoscopy events (LEEs). The primary goal of LEEs should be to facilitate the improvement of endoscopic patient care through the acquisition of best endoscopic practice. Patients should not expect additional benefit from being treated during a LEE compared to a routine setting. There is limited available evidence on LEE safety but to date there is no indication that patients are at increased risk from participation. Pre-recorded cases with live facilitation can also be used to fulfill learning outcomes. Establishing an endoscopic curriculum with clear learning outcomes is important to structure attendees' learning, assess course outcomes, and allow appropriate targeting of courses to learner experience. Increasingly, LEEs are streamed online and therefore the necessary measures should be taken to ensure that patients have given appropriate consent and that their anonymity has been safeguarded. ESGE recommends that an endoscopist who is not participating in the live demonstrations is named as patient advocate, and that patient safety should must be prioritized throughout. In all ESGE-organized LEEs the intended learning outcomes, procedural indications and descriptions, attendee feedback, and adverse events should be recorded and submitted in a post-event report to ESGE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]