ABSTRACT
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.
ABSTRACT
Poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC) is an uncommon neoplasm characterized by tumorous cells exhibiting a lack of adhesion. PCC has been reported rarely in the small intestine other than at the ampulla of Vater. We present a 40-year-old man with recurrent abdominal pain and small bowel obstruction. Imaging revealed an abnormal appearing distal small bowel, with only nonspecific mucosal changes discovered on antegrade and retrograde enteroscopy. On subsequent diagnostic laparoscopy, an ileal mass was found and resected with histopathology showing PCC with signet ring formation. This is an aggressive cancer with a worse prognosis than other small bowel adenocarcinomas.
ABSTRACT
The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.
Subject(s)
Gallstones , Lithotripsy , Humans , Gallstones/complications , Gallstones/diagnostic imaging , Gallstones/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) cause a substantial health burden. Herein we studied the prevalence and characteristics of DGBI and symptoms of bloating/distension in El Paso, Texas on the US-Mexico border, providing a unique opportunity to study the effects of acculturation. METHODS: Subjects from community centers completed the Rome IV questionnaire for DGBI, short acculturation scale for Hispanics questionnaire, and bloating/distention Pictograms. Data were presented as prevalence (95% CI) and compared using χ 2 . RESULTS: Of 216 participants, 197 (127 Hispanics, 90 with English acculturation) were included and 177 completed the Pictograms. Fifty-one [25.9% (20 to 32.6)] subjects fulfilled the criteria for at least one DGBI. Globus and functional dyspepsia were the most common upper DGBI, each in [3.0% (1.1 to 6.5)]. Unspecified functional bowel disorders [8.6% (5.1 to 13.5)], followed by functional abdominal bloating/distention [8.1% (4.7 to 12.9], and irritable bowel syndrome [6.1% (3.2 to 10.4] were the most common functional bowel disorder. Ninety-one (51.4%) reported bloating and/or distension with Pictograms; more frequently in those with DGBI (80.9% vs 40.8%, P < 0.001). Bloating and/or distension were reported by Pictograms in 30% of those not reporting it in the Rome IV Questionnaire. There were no differences based on acculturation or in Hispanics versus non-Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: On the US-Mexico border, we found a lower prevalence of DGBI than in the US or Mexico. Functional abdominal bloating/distention was more prevalent on the US-Mexico border than in either country. Bloating/distension was more commonly reported with Pictograms than with verbal descriptors. There were no differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, suggesting shared environmental/acquired including dietary factors as the underlying mechanisms.
Subject(s)
Gastrointestinal Diseases , Irritable Bowel Syndrome , Humans , Mexico/epidemiology , Rome , Irritable Bowel Syndrome/diagnosis , Surveys and Questionnaires , Gastrointestinal Diseases/epidemiology , Flatulence , BrainABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Resection options for early gastric cancer (EGC) include endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and surgery. In patients with metachronous EGC following previous resection, the optimal resection technique is not well elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ESD to EMR, or ESD to surgery, in patients with metachronous EGC. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of studies reporting on outcomes and AEs following ESD versus either EMR or surgery for patients with metachronous EGC. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of included studies were obtained using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Funnel plots were produced and visually inspected for evidence of publication bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: A total of 9367 abstracts were screened and 10 observational studies were included. The odds of complete resection were higher amongst patients undergoing ESD compared to EMR (OR 5.88, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.79-19.35), whereas the odds of complete resection were no different between ESD and surgery (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04-8.24). There were no differences in the odds of local recurrence with ESD versus surgery (OR 5.01, 95% CI 0.86-29.13). Post-procedural bleeding did not differ significantly between ESD and EMR (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16-3.00). There was no evidence of publication bias. DISCUSSION: For metachronous EGC, ESD or surgery is preferred over EMR depending on local expertise and patient preferences, largely due to a higher risk of incomplete resection with EMR. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021270445.
Subject(s)
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/adverse effects , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Early Detection of Cancer , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Retrospective Studies , Gastric Mucosa/surgeryABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection , Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection , Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Bile Duct Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Evidence-Based Medicine , Bile Duct Diseases/etiology , Biopsy , EndoscopyABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Ergonomics , Humans , Posture , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Cholestasis , Liver Transplantation , Humans , United States , Constriction, Pathologic/etiology , Constriction, Pathologic/therapy , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde , Liver Transplantation/adverse effects , Cholestasis/etiology , Cholestasis/surgery , Stents , Endoscopy, GastrointestinalABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Cholestasis , Liver Transplantation , Humans , Constriction, Pathologic/etiology , Constriction, Pathologic/therapy , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde/methods , Liver Transplantation/adverse effects , Cholestasis/etiology , Cholestasis/surgery , Stents , Endoscopy, GastrointestinalSubject(s)
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde , Pancreatitis , Humans , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde/adverse effects , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde/methods , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Pancreatitis/etiology , Pancreatitis/prevention & control , Risk Factors , United StatesABSTRACT
Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.