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.

Arterial Pseudoaneurysm Mimicking a Mural Nodule Within a Pancreatic Cyst

Pancreatic cysts with high-risk characteristics are at increased risk of harboring high-grade dysplasia or pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound may clarify the nature of the cystic lesion and its malignant potential. A mural nodule found through endoscopic ultrasound within a cyst may represent malignancy and require fine-needle aspiration. Pancreatic pseudocysts are benign walled-off fluid collections that form in the setting of pancreatitis and may be difficult to differentiate from neoplastic cysts. Pseudoaneurysms form when pancreatitis inflammation damages vessel walls and can cause fatal hemorrhage. We present a pancreatic pseudocyst with pseudoaneurysm mimicking a neoplastic cyst with a mural nodule.

Successful Design and Implementation of a POEM Program for Achalasia in an Integrated Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) is a minimally invasive treatment for achalasia with results comparable to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Studies have described the development of proficiency for endoscopists learning to perform POEM, and societies have defined educational and technical objectives for advanced endoscopy fellows in training. However, there is limited guidance on the organizational strategy and educational plan necessary to develop an achalasia service with POEM expertise.

AIMS

We aim to outline the steps for design and implementation of a successful POEM program.

METHODS

We reported our experience developing a multi-disciplinary clinical program for POEM and the steps taken to achieve procedural proficiency. We also reported our technical success (successful tunneling into the gastric cardia and myotomy of LES muscle fibers) and clinical success (post-procedure Eckardt score ≤ 3) at 3-6 months and 12 months post-procedure. Adverse events were classified per the ASGE lexicon for endoscopic adverse events.

RESULTS

After creating a multi-disciplinary clinical program for achalasia and completing procedural proficiency for POEM, our technical success rate was 100% and clinical success rate 90% for the first 41 patients. One adverse event (2.4%) occurred, moderate in severity per the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon for adverse endoscopic events.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we outlined the steps involved to establish a POEM service in a large integrated healthcare system. Prior competency in interventional endoscopy, procedural training models, POEM observation and education, proctorship, and interdisciplinary patient care are recommended.

Declining Colectomy Rates for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps in a Large, Ethnically Diverse, Community-Based Population

INTRODUCTION

Despite studies showing improved safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps have been increasing in the United States and Europe. Given this alarming trend, we aimed to investigate whether colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing or declining in a large, integrated, community-based healthcare system with access to advanced endoscopic resection procedures.

METHODS

We identified all individuals aged 50-85 years who underwent a colonoscopy between 2008 and 2018 and were diagnosed with a nonmalignant colorectal polyp(s) at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated healthcare system. Among these individuals, we identified those who underwent a colectomy for nonmalignant colorectal polyps within 12 months after the colonoscopy. We calculated annual colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps and stratified rates by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Changes in rates over time were tested by the Cochran-Armitage test for a linear trend.

RESULTS

Among 229,730 patients who were diagnosed with nonmalignant colorectal polyps between 2008 and 2018, 1,611 patients underwent a colectomy. Colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps decreased significantly from 125 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2008 to 12 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2018 (P < 0.001 for trend). When stratified by age, sex, and race and ethnicity, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps also significantly declined from 2008 to 2018.

DISCUSSION

In a large, ethnically diverse, community-based population in the United States, we found that colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps declined significantly over the past decade likely because of the establishment of advanced endoscopy centers, improved care coordination, and an organized colorectal cancer screening program.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures

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.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Gastric Neoplasia in a Large Cohort in North America

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely accepted treatment option for superficial gastric neoplasia in Asia, but there are few data on outcomes of gastric ESD from North America. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gastric ESD in North America.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 347 patients who underwent gastric ESD at 25 centers, from 2010 through 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure details and related adverse events, treatment outcomes, local recurrence, and vital status at the last follow up. For the 277 patients with available follow-up data, the median interval between initial ESD and last clinical or endoscopic evaluation was 364 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of en bloc and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes included curative resection, rates of adverse events and recurrence, and gastric cancer-related death.

RESULTS

Ninety patients (26%) had low-grade adenomas or dysplasia, 82 patients (24%) had high-grade dysplasia, 139 patients (40%) had early gastric cancer, and 36 patients (10%) had neuroendocrine tumors. Proportions of en bloc and R0 resection for all lesions were 92%/82%, for early gastric cancers were 94%/75%, for adenomas and low-grade dysplasia were 93%/ 92%, for high-grade dysplasia were 89%/ 87%, and for neuroendocrine tumors were 92%/75%. Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.6% of patients; 82% of these were treated successfully with endoscopic therapy. Delayed bleeding occurred in 2.6% of patients. No delayed perforation or procedure-related deaths were observed. There were local recurrences in 3.9% of cases; all occurred after non-curative ESD resection. Metachronous lesions were identified in 14 patients (6.9%). One of 277 patients with clinical follow up died of metachronous gastric cancer that occurred 2.5 years after the initial ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is a highly effective treatment for superficial gastric neoplasia and should be considered as a viable option for patients in North America. The risk of local recurrence is low and occurs exclusively after non-curative resection. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to identify and treat metachronous lesions.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of malignant hilar obstruction

This clinical guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the management of patients with malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses primary drainage modality (percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage [PTBD] vs endoscopic biliary drainage [EBD]), drainage strategy (unilateral vs bilateral), and stent selection (plastic stent [PS] vs self-expandable metal stent [SEMS]). Regarding drainage modality, in patients with MHO undergoing drainage before potential resection or transplantation, the panel suggests against routine use of PTBD as first-line therapy compared with EBD. In patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative drainage, the panel suggests PTBD or EBD. The final decision should be based on patient preferences, disease characteristics, and local expertise. Regarding drainage strategy, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placement of bilateral stents compared with a unilateral stent in the absence of liver atrophy. Finally, regarding type of stent, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placing SEMSs or PSs. However, in patients who have a short life expectancy and who place high value on avoiding repeated interventions, the panel suggests using SEMSs compared with PSs. If optimal drainage strategy has not been established, the panel suggests placing PSs. 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.

ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis

Cholangitis is a GI emergency requiring prompt recognition and treatment. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an evidence-based approach for management of cholangitis. This document addresses the modality of drainage (endoscopic vs percutaneous), timing of intervention (<48 hours vs >48 hours), and extent of initial intervention (comprehensive therapy vs decompression alone). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to formulate recommendations on these topics. The ASGE suggests endoscopic rather than percutaneous drainage and biliary decompression within 48 hours. Additionally, the panel suggests that sphincterotomy and stone removal be combined with drainage rather than decompression alone, unless patients are too unstable to tolerate more extensive endoscopic treatment.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of benign and malignant gastroduodenal obstruction

This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to address key clinical questions. These include the comparison of (1) surgical gastrojejunostomy to the placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for malignant GOO, (2) covered versus uncovered SEMS for malignant GOO, and (3) endoscopic and surgical interventions for the management of benign GOO. Recommendations provided in this document were founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of benefits and harms, considerations of patient and caregiver preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in familial adenomatous polyposis syndromes

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome is a complex entity, which includes FAP, attenuated FAP, and MUTYH-associated polyposis. These patients are at significant risk for colorectal cancer and carry additional risks for extracolonic malignancies. In this guideline, we reviewed the most recent literature to formulate recommendations on the role of endoscopy in this patient population. Relevant clinical questions were how to identify high-risk individuals warranting genetic testing, when to start screening examinations, what are appropriate surveillance intervals, how to identify endoscopically high-risk features, and what is the role of chemoprevention. A systematic literature search from 2005 to 2018 was performed, in addition to the inclusion of seminal historical studies. Most studies were from worldwide registries, which have compiled years of data regarding the natural history and cancer risks in this cohort. Given that most studies were retrospective, recommendations were based on epidemiologic data and expert opinion. Management of colorectal polyps in FAP has not changed much in recent years, as colectomy in FAP is the standard of care. What is new, however, is the developing body of literature on the role of endoscopy in managing upper GI and small-bowel polyposis, as patients are living longer and improved endoscopic technologies have emerged.

ASGE guideline on minimum staffing requirements for the performance of GI endoscopy

Efforts to increase patient safety and satisfaction, a critical concern for health providers, require periodic evaluation of all factors involved in the provision of GI endoscopy services. We aimed to develop guidelines on minimum staffing requirements and scope of practice of available staff for the safe and efficient performance of GI endoscopy. The recommendations in this guideline were based on a systematic review of published literature, results from a nationwide survey of endoscopy directors, along with the expert guidance of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee members, ASGE Practice Operation Committee members, and the ASGE Governing Board.

ASGE guideline on the management of achalasia

Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown etiology characterized by degeneration of the myenteric plexus, which results in impaired relaxation of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), along with the loss of organized peristalsis in the esophageal body. The criterion standard for diagnosing achalasia is high-resolution esophageal manometry showing incomplete relaxation of the EGJ coupled with the absence of organized peristalsis. Three achalasia subtypes have been defined based on high-resolution manometry findings in the esophageal body. Treatment of patients with achalasia has evolved in recent years with the introduction of peroral endoscopic myotomy. Other treatment options include botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilation, and Heller myotomy. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of achalasia, based on an updated assessment of the individual and comparative effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost of the 4 aforementioned achalasia therapies.

ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy for bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy

Chronic radiation proctopathy is a common sequela of radiation therapy for malignancies in the pelvic region. A variety of medical and endoscopic therapies have been used for the management of bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy. In this guideline, we reviewed the results of a systematic search of the literature from 1946 to 2017 to formulate clinical questions and recommendations on the role of endoscopy for bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy. The following endoscopic modalities are discussed in our document: argon plasma coagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, radiofrequency ablation, and cryoablation. Most studies were small observational studies, and the evidence for effectiveness of endoscopic therapy for chronic radiation proctopathy was limited because of a lack of controlled trials and comparative studies. Despite this limitation, our systematic review found that argon plasma coagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and radiofrequency ablation were effective in the treatment of rectal bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis

Each year choledocholithiasis results in biliary obstruction, cholangitis, and pancreatitis in a significant number of patients. The primary treatment, ERCP, is minimally invasive but associated with adverse events in 6% to 15%. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standard of Practice (SOP) Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic evaluation and treatment of choledocholithiasis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the contemporary literature regarding the following topics: EUS versus MRCP for diagnosis, the role of early ERCP in gallstone pancreatitis, endoscopic papillary dilation after sphincterotomy versus sphincterotomy alone for large bile duct stones, and impact of ERCP-guided intraductal therapy for large and difficult choledocholithiasis. Comprehensive systematic reviews were also performed to assess the following: same-admission cholecystectomy for gallstone pancreatitis, clinical predictors of choledocholithiasis, optimal timing of ERCP vis-à-vis cholecystectomy, management of Mirizzi syndrome and hepatolithiasis, and biliary stent therapy for choledocholithiasis. Core clinical questions were derived using an iterative process by the ASGE SOP Committee. This body developed all recommendations founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of risks and harms, consideration of stakeholder preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Minimum staffing requirements for the performance of GI endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

Ethnic issues in endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is placed on results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the quality of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "we suggest," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as "we recommend." This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline.