The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis, a common preneoplastic condition of the ...stomach, with a primary focus on atrophic gastritis due to chronic Helicobacter pylori infection—the most common etiology—or due to autoimmunity. To date, clinical guidance for best practices related to the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis remains very limited in the United States, which leads to poor recognition of this preneoplastic condition and suboptimal risk stratification. In addition, there is heterogeneity in the definitions of atrophic gastritis, autoimmune gastritis, pernicious anemia, and gastric neoplasia in the literature, which has led to confusion in clinical practice and research. Accordingly, the primary objective of this Clinical Practice Update is to provide clinicians with a framework for the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis. By focusing on atrophic gastritis, this Clinical Practice Update is intended to complement the 2020 American Gastroenterological Association Institute guidelines on the management of gastric intestinal metaplasia. These recent guidelines did not specifically discuss the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis. Providers should recognize, however, that a diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia on gastric histopathology implies the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis because intestinal metaplasia occurs in underlying atrophic mucosa, although this is often not distinctly noted on histopathologic reports. Nevertheless, atrophic gastritis represents an important stage with distinct histopathologic alterations in the multistep cascade of gastric cancer pathogenesis.
The Best Practice Advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out. These statements are meant to provide practical advice to clinicians practicing in the United States.
Best Practice Advice Statements
Atrophic gastritis is defined as the loss of gastric glands, with or without metaplasia, in the setting of chronic inflammation mainly due to Helicobacter pylori infection or autoimmunity. Regardless of the etiology, the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis should be confirmed by histopathology.
Providers should be aware that the presence of intestinal metaplasia on gastric histology almost invariably implies the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis. There should be a coordinated effort between gastroenterologists and pathologists to improve the consistency of documenting the extent and severity of atrophic gastritis, particularly if marked atrophy is present.
Providers should recognize typical endoscopic features of atrophic gastritis, which include pale appearance of gastric mucosa, increased visibility of vasculature due to thinning of the gastric mucosa, and loss of gastric folds, and, if with concomitant intestinal metaplasia, light blue crests and white opaque fields. Because these mucosal changes are often subtle, techniques to optimize evaluation of the gastric mucosa should be performed.
When endoscopic features of atrophic gastritis are present, providers should assess the extent endoscopically. Providers should obtain biopsies from the suspected atrophic/metaplastic areas for histopathological confirmation and risk stratification; at a minimum, biopsies from the body and antrum/incisura should be obtained and placed in separately labeled jars. Targeted biopsies should additionally be obtained from any other mucosal abnormalities.
In patients with histology compatible with autoimmune gastritis, providers should consider checking antiparietal cell antibodies and anti-intrinsic factor antibodies to assist with the diagnosis. Providers should also evaluate for anemia due to vitamin B-12 and iron deficiencies.
All individuals with atrophic gastritis should be assessed for H pylori infection. If positive, treatment of H pylori should be administered and successful eradication should be confirmed using nonserological testing modalities.
The optimal endoscopic surveillance interval for patients with atrophic gastritis is not well-defined and should be decided based on individual risk assessment and shared decision making. A surveillance endoscopy every 3 years should be considered in individuals with advanced atrophic gastritis, defined based on anatomic extent and histologic grade.
The optimal surveillance interval for individuals with autoimmune gastritis is unclear. Interval endoscopic surveillance should be considered based on individualized assessment and shared decision making.
Providers should recognize pernicious anemia as a late-stage manifestation of autoimmune gastritis that is characterized by vitamin B-12 deficiency and macrocytic anemia. Patients with a new diagnosis of pernicious anemia who have not had a recent endoscopy should undergo endoscopy with topographical biopsies to confirm corpus-predominant atrophic gastritis for risk stratification and to rule out prevalent gastric neoplasia, including neuroendocrine tumors.
Individuals with autoimmune gastritis should be screened for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors with upper endoscopy. Small neuroendocrine tumors should be removed endoscopically, followed by surveillance endoscopy every 1–2 years, depending on the burden of neuroendocrine tumors.
Providers should evaluate for iron and vitamin B-12 deficiencies in patients with atrophic gastritis irrespective of etiology, especially if corpus-predominant. Likewise, in patients with unexplained iron or vitamin B-12 deficiency, atrophic gastritis should be considered in the differential diagnosis and appropriate diagnostic evaluation pursued.
In patients with autoimmune gastritis, providers should recognize that concomitant autoimmune disorders, particularly autoimmune thyroid disease, are common. Screening for autoimmune thyroid disease should be performed.
Gastric adenocarcinoma carries a poor prognosis, in part due to the late stage of diagnosis. Risk factors include Helicobacter pylori infection, family history of gastric cancer—in particular, ...hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and pernicious anaemia. The stages in the progression to cancer include chronic gastritis, gastric atrophy (GA), gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia. The key to early detection of cancer and improved survival is to non-invasively identify those at risk before endoscopy. However, although biomarkers may help in the detection of patients with chronic atrophic gastritis, there is insufficient evidence to support their use for population screening. High-quality endoscopy with full mucosal visualisation is an important part of improving early detection. Image-enhanced endoscopy combined with biopsy sampling for histopathology is the best approach to detect and accurately risk-stratify GA and GIM. Biopsies following the Sydney protocol from the antrum, incisura, lesser and greater curvature allow both diagnostic confirmation and risk stratification for progression to cancer. Ideally biopsies should be directed to areas of GA or GIM visualised by high-quality endoscopy. There is insufficient evidence to support screening in a low-risk population (undergoing routine diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy) such as the UK, but endoscopic surveillance every 3 years should be offered to patients with extensive GA or GIM. Endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection of visible gastric dysplasia and early cancer has been shown to be efficacious with a high success rate and low rate of recurrence, providing that specific quality criteria are met.
Main Recommendations
Patients with chronic atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at risk for gastric adenocarcinoma. This underscores the importance of diagnosis and risk ...stratification for these patients. High definition endoscopy with chromoendoscopy (CE) is better than high definition white-light endoscopy alone for this purpose. Virtual CE can guide biopsies for staging atrophic and metaplastic changes and can target neoplastic lesions. Biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (antrum and corpus) and labelled in two separate vials. For patients with mild to moderate atrophy restricted to the antrum there is no evidence to recommend surveillance. In patients with IM at a single location but with a family history of gastric cancer, incomplete IM, or persistent
Helicobacter pylori
gastritis, endoscopic surveillance with CE and guided biopsies may be considered in 3 years. Patients with advanced stages of atrophic gastritis should be followed up with a high quality endoscopy every 3 years. In patients with dysplasia, in the absence of an endoscopically defined lesion, immediate high quality endoscopic reassessment with CE is recommended. Patients with an endoscopically visible lesion harboring low or high grade dysplasia or carcinoma should undergo staging and treatment.
H. pylori
eradication heals nonatrophic chronic gastritis, may lead to regression of atrophic gastritis, and reduces the risk of gastric cancer in patients with these conditions, and it is recommended.
H. pylori
eradication is also recommended for patients with neoplasia after endoscopic therapy. In intermediate to high risk regions, identification and surveillance of patients with precancerous gastric conditions is cost-effective.
This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and ...presents new clinically relevant recommendations.
An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.
Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.
ObjectiveThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) declines among subjects aged 50 years and above. An opposite trend appears among younger adults. In Europe, data on CRC incidence among younger ...adults are lacking. We therefore aimed to analyse European trends in CRC incidence and mortality in subjects younger than 50 years.DesignData on age-related CRC incidence and mortality between 1990 and 2016 were retrieved from national and regional cancer registries. Trends were analysed by Joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent change.ResultsWe retrieved data on 143.7 million people aged 20–49 years from 20 European countries. Of them, 187 918 (0.13%) were diagnosed with CRC. On average, CRC incidence increased with 7.9% per year among subjects aged 20–29 years from 2004 to 2016. The increase in the age group of 30–39 years was 4.9% per year from 2005 to 2016, the increase in the age group of 40–49 years was 1.6% per year from 2004 to 2016. This increase started earliest in subjects aged 20–29 years, and 10–20 years later in those aged 30–39 and 40–49 years. This is consistent with an age-cohort phenomenon. Although in most European countries the CRC incidence had risen, some heterogeneity was found between countries. CRC mortality did not significantly change among the youngest adults, but decreased with 1.1%per year between 1990 and 2016 and 2.4% per year between 1990 and 2009 among those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years, respectively.ConclusionCRC incidence rises among young adults in Europe. The cause for this trend needs to be elucidated. Clinicians should be aware of this trend. If the trend continues, screening guidelines may need to be reconsidered.
In this randomized trial involving 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than ...among those assigned to no screening.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, with wide geographical variation in incidence and mortality across the world. Despite proof that screening can ...decrease CRC incidence and mortality, CRC screening is only offered to a small proportion of the target population worldwide. Throughout the world there are widespread differences in CRC screening implementation status and strategy. Differences can be attributed to geographical variation in CRC incidence, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure to support screening such as the ability to identify the target population at risk and cancer registry availability. This review highlights issues to consider when implementing a CRC screening programme and gives a worldwide overview of CRC burden and the current status of screening programmes, with focus on international differences.
Treatments for colorectal cancer (CRC) of all stages have evolved considerably over the past two decades, resulting in improved long-term outcomes. After curative treatment, however, 30% of patients ...with stage I-III and up to 65% of patients with stage IV CRC develop recurrent disease. Thus, patients are routinely offered surveillance in order to detect disease recurrence at an early, asymptomatic stage, with the intention of improving survival. Nevertheless, controversy continues to surround the optimal surveillance protocols. For patients with stage I-III CRC, more-intensive surveillance improves overall survival compared with less-intensive or no surveillance, probably owing to improved outcomes after cancer recurrence, as well as proactive treatment of other conditions detected opportunistically. The benefit of surveillance after curative treatment of stage IV CRC is more controversial, but might be justified because repeat resection can improve overall survival and 20% of these patients are eligible for such treatment with curative intent. No trials have assessed the optimal follow-up approach after curative resection of metastatic CRC, and similarly to surveillance of patients with stage I-III disease, most programmes are more intensive during the first 3 years than at later time points. Herein, we provide a comprehensive overview of surveillance strategies for patients with CRC, and discuss the future development of patient-centred programmes.
This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage ...(NVUGIH).
Main Recommendations
MR1.
ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR2.
ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR3.
ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 – 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR4.
ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR5.
ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR6.
ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 – 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal GI endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR7.
Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR8.
ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR9.
ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR10.
In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR11.
ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR12.
ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR13.
ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR14.
In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of
Helicobacter pylori
in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when
H. pylori
is detected. Re-testing for
H. pylori
should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful
H. pylori
eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR15.
In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
The first evidence that screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) could effectively reduce mortality dates back 20 years. However, actual population screening has, in many countries, halted at the level ...of individual testing and discussions on differences between screening tests. With a wealth of new evidence from various community-based studies looking at test uptake, screening-programme organization and the importance of quality assurance, population screening for CRC is now moving into a new realm, promising better results in terms of reducing CRC-specific morbidity and mortality. Such a shift in the paradigm requires a change from opportunistic, individual testing towards organized population screening with comprehensive monitoring and full-programme quality assurance. To achieve this, a combination of factors--including test characteristics, uptake, screenee autonomy, costs and capacity--must be considered. Thus, evidence from randomized trials comparing different tests must be supplemented by studies of acceptance and uptake to obtain the full picture of the effectiveness (in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost) the different strategies have. In this Review, we discuss a range of screening modalities and describe the factors to be considered to achieve a truly effective population CRC screening programme.
PDF
