Main recommendations
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
Current practices for the management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) vary across Europe, as several national European guidelines exist. This Position Statement from the European Society of ...Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is an attempt to homogenize recommendations and, hence, patient management according to the best scientific evidence and other considerations (e.g. health policy). A Working Group developed consensus statements, using the existing national guidelines as a starting point and considering new evidence in the literature. The Position Statement wishes to contribute to a more cost-effective approach to the care of patients with BE by reducing the number of surveillance endoscopies for patients with a low risk of malignant progression and centralizing care in expert centers for those with high progression rates.
Main statements
MS1
The diagnosis of BE is made if the distal esophagus is lined with columnar epithelium with a minimum length of 1 cm (tongues or circular) containing specialized intestinal metaplasia at histopathological examination.
MS2
The ESGE recommends varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance is advised. For BE ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. Patients with limited life expectancy and advanced age should be discharged from endoscopic surveillance.
MS3
The diagnosis of any degree of dysplasia (including “indefinite for dysplasia”) in BE requires confirmation by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist.
MS4
Patients with visible lesions in BE diagnosed as dysplasia or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center. All visible abnormalities, regardless of the degree of dysplasia, should be removed by means of endoscopic resection techniques in order to obtain optimal histopathological staging
MS5
All patients with a BE ≥ 10 cm, a confirmed diagnosis of low grade dysplasia, high grade dysplasia (HGD), or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance and/or treatment. BE expert centers should meet the following criteria: annual case load of ≥10 new patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for HGD or early carcinoma per BE expert endoscopist; endoscopic and histological care provided by endoscopists and pathologists who have followed additional training; at least 30 supervised endoscopic resection and 30 endoscopic ablation procedures to acquire competence in technical skills, management pathways, and complications; multidisciplinary meetings with gastroenterologists, surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists to discuss patients with Barrett’s neoplasia; access to experienced esophageal surgery; and all BE patients registered prospectively in a database.
Abstract
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend ...that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level:
1
Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %);
2
Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %);
3
Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %);
4
Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %);
5
Complication rate (minimum standard not set);
6
Patient experience (minimum standard not set);
7
Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set).
Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.
Abstract
We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential ...increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (www.esge.com) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (www.esgena.org) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement.
Main Recommendations
1
ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist’s ...adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.
Weak recommendation, high quality evidence.
2
ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
4
ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps and can replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained, as defined in the ESGE curriculum, and audited.
Weak recommendation, high quality evidence.
5
ESGE recommends the use of high definition white-light endoscopy in combination with (virtual) chromoendoscopy to predict the presence and depth of any submucosal invasion in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps prior to any treatment.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
6
ESGE recommends the use of virtual or dye-based chromoendoscopy in addition to white-light endoscopy for the detection of residual neoplasia at a piecemeal polypectomy scar site.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
7
ESGE suggests the possible incorporation of computer-aided diagnosis (detection and characterization of lesions) to colonoscopy, if acceptable and reproducible accuracy for colorectal neoplasia is demonstrated in high quality multicenter in vivo clinical studies. Possible significant risks with implementation, specifically endoscopist deskilling and over-reliance on artificial intelligence, unrepresentative training datasets, and hacking, need to be considered.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Background and aim:
This technical review is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the utilization of advanced endoscopic imaging in ...gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.
Methods:
This technical review is based on a systematic literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of advanced endoscopic imaging throughout the GI tract. Technologies considered include narrowed-spectrum endoscopy (narrow band imaging NBI; flexible spectral imaging color enhancement FICE; i-Scan digital contrast I-SCAN), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence.
Main recommendations:
1.
We suggest advanced endoscopic imaging technologies improve mucosal visualization and enhance fine structural and microvascular detail. Expert endoscopic diagnosis may be improved by advanced imaging, but as yet in community-based practice no technology has been shown consistently to be diagnostically superior to current practice with high definition white light. (Low quality evidence.)
2.
We recommend the use of validated classification systems to support the use of optical diagnosis with advanced endoscopic imaging in the upper and lower GI tracts (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
3.
We suggest that training improves performance in the use of advanced endoscopic imaging techniques and that it is a prerequisite for use in clinical practice. A learning curve exists and training alone does not guarantee sustained high performances in clinical practice. (Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.)
Conclusion:
Advanced endoscopic imaging can improve mucosal visualization and endoscopic diagnosis; however it requires training and the use of validated classification systems.
Main Recommendations
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.
Background and Aims Endoscopic inflammation and healing are important therapeutic endpoints in ulcerative colitis (UC). We developed and validated a new electronic virtual chromoendoscopy (EVC) score ...that could reflect the full spectrum of mucosal and vascular changes including mucosal healing in UC. Methods Eight participants reviewed a 60-minute training module outlining 3 different i-SCAN modes demonstrating the entire spectrum of inflammatory mucosal and vascular changes in UC. Performance characteristics in endoscopic scoring and predicting the histologic inflammation with EVC (i-SCAN) by using 20 video clips before (pre-test) and after (post-test) were evaluated. Exploratory univariate factor analysis was performed on Paddington International Virtual Chromoendoscopy Score (PICaSSO) covariates for mucosal and vascular score separately. Subsequently, a proportional odds logistic regression model for the prediction of histologic scores was analyzed. Results The interobserver agreement for Mayo endoscopic score in the pre-test (κ = .85; 95% CI, .78-.90) and the post-test (κ = .85; 95% CI, .77-.90) evaluation were very good. This was also true for the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity in the pre-test and post-test score interobserver agreement (κ = .86; 95% CI, .77-.92; and κ = .84; 95% CI, .75-.91, respectively). The interobserver agreement of the PICaSSO endoscopic score was very good in the pre-test and post-test evaluations (κ = .92; 95% CI, .87-.96; and κ = .89; 95% CI, .84-.94, respectively). The accuracy of the overall PICaSSO in assessing histologic abnormalities and inflammation by Harpaz score was 57% (95% CI, 48%-65%), by Robarts Histological Index 72% (95% CI, 64%-79%), and by the extent, chronicity, activity, plus system (full spectrum of histologic changes) 83% (95% CI, 76%-88%). Conclusions The EVC score “PICaSSO” showed very good interobserver agreement. The new EVC score may be used to define the endoscopic findings of mucosal and vascular healing in UC and reflected the full spectrum of histologic changes.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
PDF
