Interventional gastroenterology in oncology.

Cancer is one of the foremost health problems worldwide and is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Gastrointestinal tract cancers account for almost one third of the cancer-related mortality globally, making it one of the deadliest groups of cancers. Early diagnosis and prompt management are key to preventing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. With advancements in technology and endoscopic techniques, endoscopy has become the core in diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal tract cancers. In this extensive review, the authors discuss the role endoscopy plays in early detection, diagnosis, and management of esophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic, ampullary, biliary tract, and small intestinal cancers.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic tumors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Surgery is a cornerstone in the management of pancreatic cancer and precancerous pancreatic lesions. However, many patients are not suitable candidates for surgery at the time of diagnosis for various reasons. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) appears to be a promising treatment option for patients who are ineligible for surgery for management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), and pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). RECENT FINDINGS: EUS-RFA may serve as an adjunct to chemotherapy or palliative measures for inoperable cases of PDAC. Given its feasibility and efficacy, EUS-RFA has an evolving niche as a minimally invasive and potentially definitive treatment for PNETs and high-risk PCLs such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). EUS-RFA is a generally well tolerated procedure, with abdominal pain and acute pancreatitis being the most common adverse effects, though the risk can be mitigated through prophylactic measures. SUMMARY: There is an increasing body of evidence to support the use of EUS-RFA in managing pancreatic lesions, either as definitive, adjunctive, or palliative treatment, depending on lesion type.

Endoscopy ergonomics: a survey-based study exploring gender differences.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Women, on average, have smaller hand sizes as well as lower muscle mass and strength. With the increasing number of women entering training programs in gastroenterology, our aim was to study the subtle gender differences in endoscopy ergonomics. METHODS: A survey instrument regarding demographic information, personal preferences in endoscopy styles and techniques, and endoscopy-related injury was sent to practicing gastroenterologists. Statistical analysis was performed on the data. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 107 gastroenterologists, 41 (38.3%) female subjects and 66 (61.7%) male subjects. Female participants were shorter in height, had smaller hand sizes, and performed fewer weekly cases. More men (45.5%) than women (20%) performed advanced endoscopic procedures. Women preferred the following: (1) holding the endoscope with the umbilical cord outside the forearm; (2) using the right hand to turn the small wheel; and (3) using a pediatric colonoscope to perform colonoscopy in a petite patient or one with a low body mass index. Endoscopy-related injury was reported in 49.5% of all gastroenterologists, with women reporting a significantly higher risk of injury (63.4%) than men (40.9%) (P = .02). Although higher weekly case volumes and performance of advanced endoscopy procedures were not independent risk factors for endoscopy-related injury, female gender was found to be an independent risk factor for injury. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences exist in endoscopy styles and techniques, as well as endoscopy-related injury. Providing gender-specific training in endoscopy may improve ergonomics and decrease the risk of injury.

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION FOR PANCREATIC ADENOCARCINOMA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Emerging data suggest neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with improved survival. However, less than 40% demonstrate a meaningful radiographic response to NAC. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has emerged as a new modality to treat PDAC. We hypothesize that NAC plus EUS-RFA can be used in the management of resectable PDAC. METHODS: Prospective review of PDAC patients meeting criteria of resectable tumor anatomy that underwent NAC chemotherapy plus EUS-RFA followed by pancreatic resection. Radiographic imaging, perioperative and short-term outcomes were recorded. Surgical pathology specimens were analyzed for treatment response. RESULTS: Three eligible patients with resectable PDAC received 4 months of NAC plus EUS-RFA. One month after NAC and EUS-RFA completion, all 3 patients underwent standard pancreaticoduodenectomy without complications. After a 6-week recovery, all patients completed 2 months of post-op adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In our institutional experience, this treatment protocol appears safe as patients tolerated the combination of chemotherapy and ablation. Patients underwent pancreatic resection with uneventful recovery. This novel neoadjuvant approach may provide a more effective alternative to chemotherapy alone.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

Comparing EUS-directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted ERCP Versus Enteroscopic ERCP: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of choledocholithiasis in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is challenging. This study aims to compare technical success rates, adverse events, and procedural time between 3 current approaches: endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP). METHODS: A systematic search of 5 databases was conducted. Direct and network meta-analyses were performed to compare interventions using the random effects model. A significance threshold of P < 0.05 was applied. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. On direct meta-analysis, technical success rates were comparable between EDGE and LA-ERCP (odds ratio: 0.768, CI: 0.196-3.006, P = 0.704, I2 = 14.13%). However, EDGE and LA-ERCP showed significantly higher success rates than E-ERCP. No significant differences in adverse events were found between EDGE versus LA-ERCP, EDGE versus E-ERCP, and LA-ERCP versus E-ERCP on direct meta-analysis. In terms of procedural time, EDGE was significantly shorter than E-ERCP [mean difference (MD): -31 minutes, 95% CI: -40.748 to -21.217, P < 0.001, I2 = 19.89%), and E-ERCP was shorter than LA-ERCP (MD: -44.567 minutes, 95% CI: -76.018 to -13.116, P = 0.005, I2 = 0%). EDGE also demonstrated a significant time advantage over LA-ERCP (MD: -78.145 minutes, 95% CI: -104.882 to -51.407, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). All findings were consistent with network meta-analysis on random effects model. The heterogeneity of the model was low. CONCLUSIONS: EDGE and LA-ERCP showed superior technical success rates compared with E-ERCP. Adverse events did not significantly differ among the three approaches. Furthermore, EDGE demonstrated the shortest procedural duration. We recommend considering EDGE as a first-choice procedure.

Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and Implications for Successful Early Detection in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To successfully implement imaging-based pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance, understanding the timeline and morphologic features of neoplastic progression is key. We aimed to investigate the progression to neoplasia from serial prediagnostic pancreatic imaging tests in high-risk individuals and identify factors associated with successful early detection. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the development of pancreatic abnormalities in high-risk individuals who were diagnosed with PC or underwent pancreatic surgery, or both, in 16 international surveillance programs. RESULTS: Of 2552 high-risk individuals under surveillance, 28 (1%) developed neoplastic progression to PC or high-grade dysplasia during a median follow-up of 29 months after baseline (interquartile range [IQR], 40 months). Of these, 13 of 28 (46%) presented with a new lesion (median size, 15 mm; range 7-57 mm), a median of 11 months (IQR, 8; range 3-17 months) after a prior examination, by which time 10 of 13 (77%) had progressed beyond the pancreas. The remaining 15 of 28 (54%) had neoplastic progression in a previously detected lesion (12 originally cystic, 2 indeterminate, 1 solid), and 11 (73%) had PC progressed beyond the pancreas. The 12 patients with cysts had been monitored for 21 months (IQR, 15 months) and had a median growth of 5 mm/y (IQR, 8 mm/y). Successful early detection (as high-grade dysplasia or PC confined to the pancreas) was associated with resection of cystic lesions (vs solid or indeterminate lesions (odds ratio, 5.388; 95% confidence interval, 1.525-19.029) and small lesions (odds ratio, 0.890/mm; 95% confidence interval 0.812-0.976/mm). CONCLUSIONS: In nearly half of high-risk individuals developing high-grade dysplasia or PC, no prior lesions are detected by imaging, yet they present at an advanced stage. Progression can occur before the next scheduled annual examination. More sensitive diagnostic tools or a different management strategy for rapidly growing cysts are needed.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: methodology and review of evidence.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent. In patients with unclear diagnosis or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be assured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

The incremental yield of adenoma detection with I-Scan versus high-definition white light colonoscopy-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies.

INTRODUCTION: The incremental yield of I-Scan virtual chromoendoscopy compared to high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in detection of colorectal adenomas has not been thoroughly elucidated. METHODS: A systematic search from inception to April 2023 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-Scan to HD-WLE for detection of adenomas. A random effects model was used to compute risk difference (RD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals in adenoma detection rate (ADR). Influence analysis was done to assess robustness of findings. The number needed to diagnose was computed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and explored further by subgroup analyses defined a priori. Certainty in effect estimates was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified four studies (I-Scan n = 730, HD-WLE n = 765). I-Scan increased adenoma detection by 9% (risk difference (RD), 0.09; 0.04, 0.14; I2 02%; certainty, low). Influence analysis revealed that the gain in yield remained statistically significant with exclusion of all but one study. The number needed to capture one additional adenomatous polyp with I-Scan use was 11.2. I-Scan 1 use was associated with a statistically significant gain in ADR, whereas no significant difference in ADR was noted with I-Scan use on subgroup analysis. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, I-Scan increases the yield of adenoma detection by 9% compared to HD-WLE, with low certainty in the estimate of this effect. Data on the gain in yield of detecting large polyps, sessile serrated lesions, and on the impact of formally training endoscopists and trainees in I-Scan use and similar technology on adenoma detection rate are needed.

Self-expanding metal stents for the treatment of malignant colon obstruction from extra-colonic malignancy versus intra-colonic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The relative utility of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant colon obstruction (MCO) due to extra-colonic malignancy (ECM) versus intra-colonic malignancy (ICM) is understudied. METHODS: A systematic search was done from inception-April 2021 to identify reports of safety and efficacy of SEMS insertion for the treatment of MCO-ECM versus MCO-ICM. A meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis to compute relative risks (RR), and mean differences (MD) was performed. Subgroup analyses and influence analyses were conducted. The certainty in estimates of effect(s) was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight non-randomized studies were identified; 46% (39-53%) and 63% (59-67%) of patients in the ECM and ICM groups were male. Most obstructions were in the rectosigmoid colon in both ECM and ICM groups. SEMS insertion in MCO-ECM was associated with an increased risk of technical failure compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.92; 1.13-7.54; Certainty: Very Low). Risk of clinical failure of SEMS was higher in MCO-ECM compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.88; 1.58-2.52; Certainty: Very Low). The risk of clinical failure remained significant throughout the influence analysis, as well as on subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events or luminal perforation with SEMS insertion among patients with MCO-ECM and MCO-ICM. On influence analysis, removal of one study unveiled a significant increase in the risk of luminal perforation in MCO-ECM (RR 3.22; 1.44-7.19; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: SEMS for MCO-ECM may have a technical success rate comparable to or questionably worse than MCO-ICM, with low certainty in estimate of effects. SEMS deployment in MCO-ECM carries a higher risk of clinical failure, with a questionably higher risk of luminal perforation.

Transoral incisionless fundoplication for recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic fundoplication.

BACKGROUND: Revision of a failed laparoscopic fundoplication carries higher risk of complication and lower chance of success compared to the original surgery. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an endoscopic alternative for select GERD patients without need of a moderate/large hiatal hernia repair. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TIF 2.0 after failed laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplication (TIFFF). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TIFFF between September 2017 and December 2020 using TIF 2.0 technique (EsophyX Z/Z+) performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons. Patients were included if they had (1) recurrent GERD symptoms, (2) pathologic reflux based upon pH testing or Grade C/D esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, and (3) hiatal hernia ≤ 2 cm. The primary outcome was improvement in GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) post-TIFFF. The TIFFF cohort was also compared to a similar surgical re-operative cohort using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent TIFFF (median 4.1 years after prior fundoplication) and mean GERD-HRQL score improved from 24.3 ± 22.9 to 14.75 ± 21.6 (p = 0.014); mean Reflux Severity Index (RSI) score improved from 14.1 ± 14.6 to 9.1 ± 8.0 (p = 0.046) with 8/10 (80%) of patients with normal RSI (< 13) post-TIF. Esophagitis healed in 78% of patients. PPI use decreased from 85 to 55% with 8/20 (45%) patients off of PPI. Importantly, mean acid exposure time decreased from 12% ± 17.8 to 0.8% ± 1.1 (p = 0.028) with 9/9 (100%) of patients with normalized pH post-TIF. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy outcomes between TIFFF and surgical revision, but TIFFF had significantly fewer late adverse events. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic rescue with TIF is a safe and efficacious alternative to redo laparoscopic surgery in symptomatic patients with appropriate anatomy and objective evidence of persistent or recurrent reflux.

Multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. CONCLUSION: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.