The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia.
General
Guideline Title
The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia.
Bibliographic Source(s)
- ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Anderson MA, Appalaneni V, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fisher DA, Fisher LR, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Ikenberry SO, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan K, Krinsky ML, Malpas PM, Maple JT, Sharaf RN, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA, Cash BD. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Feb;77(2):167-74. [115 references] PubMed
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Recommendations
Major Recommendations
Definitions for the quality of the evidence (++++, +++O, ++OO, and +OOO) and for the strength of the recommendations (“recommends” or “suggests”) are provided at the end of the “Major Recommendations” field.
- The Practice Committee recommends that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) be performed in patients with suspected ampullary adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma if the EUS findings or positive fine needle aspiration (FNA) results would change management (+++O).
- The Practice Committee recommends magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) to assess for resectability if a computed tomography (CT) scan suggests cholangiocarcinoma, particularly of the bifurcation. If the lesion is unresectable, endoscopic palliation of jaundice should be performed by using MRC as a guide for unilateral drainage to minimize the risk of cholangitis (++++).
- The Practice Committee recommends endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to obtain tissue or facilitate further evaluation of indeterminate strictures (+++O).
- The Practice Committee recommends that symptomatic patients with gallbladder polyp (GBP) undergo cholecystectomy (+++O).
- The Practice Committee suggests that asymptomatic patients with a GBP larger than 10 mm undergo cholecystectomy (++OO).
- The Practice Committee suggests that asymptomatic patients with a GBP 6 mm to 10 mm in size and without other risk factors for gallbladder cancer be followed by transabdominal ultrasound (TUS) every 12 months (++OO).
- The Practice Committee recommends that the presence of any GBP should prompt cholecystectomy in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) (+++O).
Definitions:
GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) System for Rating the Quality of Evidence for Guidelines
Quality of Evidence | Definition | Symbol |
---|---|---|
High quality | Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect. | ++++ |
Moderate quality | Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. | +++O |
Low quality | Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. | ++OO |
Very low quality | Any estimate of effect is very uncertain. | +OOO |
Adapted from Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.
Recommendation Strength
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 “the Practice Committee suggests,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “the Practice Committee recommends.”
Clinical Algorithm(s)
None provided
Scope
Disease/Condition(s)
Biliary neoplasia, including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder polyps, and adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder
Guideline Category
- Diagnosis
- Evaluation
- Treatment
Clinical Specialty
- Gastroenterology
Intended Users
- Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)
To review the approach to the evaluation and treatment of the patient with suspected biliary neoplasia
Target Population
Adults with suspected biliary neoplasia
Interventions and Practices Considered
- Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)
- Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC)
- Endoscopic palliation of jaundice
- Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
- Cholecystectomy
- Transabdominal ultrasound (TUS)
Major Outcomes Considered
- Sensitivity, specificity and predictability of diagnostic tests for diagnosis and classification
- Safety and effectiveness of endoscopic procedures
- Effectiveness of endoscopic approaches to treatment
Methodology
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
- Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
- Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
- Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature for the years 1980 to 2012 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 given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts.
Number of Source Documents
Not stated
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
- Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) System for Rating the Quality of Evidence for Guidelines
Quality of Evidence | Definition | Symbol |
---|---|---|
High quality | Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect. | ++++ |
Moderate quality | Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. | +++O |
Low quality | Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. | ++OO |
Very low quality | Any estimate of effect is very uncertain. | +OOO |
Adapted from Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
- Review of Published Meta-Analyses
- Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Not stated
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
- Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
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 “the Practice Committee suggests,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “the Practice Committee recommends.”
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
- Internal Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
This document is a product of the Standards of Practice Committee. The document was reviewed and approved by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the “Major Recommendations” field).
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
Appropriate use of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of biliary neoplasia
Potential Harms
- Risk of post-procedural cholangitis or pancreatitis
- Complications related to procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). If the level of obstruction is at or above the hilum, extensive injection of contrast in ERCP should be avoided to minimize the risk of postprocedural cholangitis because the entire biliary tree may not drain adequately. Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) can be helpful in defining ductal anatomy before ERCP to reduce the risk of this adverse event.
Qualifying Statements
Qualifying Statements
- 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.
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
An implementation strategy was not provided.
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
- Getting Better
- Living with Illness
- Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
- Effectiveness
- Patient-centeredness
- Safety
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
- ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Anderson MA, Appalaneni V, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fisher DA, Fisher LR, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Ikenberry SO, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan K, Krinsky ML, Malpas PM, Maple JT, Sharaf RN, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA, Cash BD. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Feb;77(2):167-74. [115 references] PubMed
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2013 Feb
Guideline Developer(s)
- American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy - Medical Specialty Society
Source(s) of Funding
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Guideline Committee
Standards of Practice Committee
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Committee Members : Michelle A. Anderson, MD; Vasu Appalaneni, MD; Tamir Ben-Menachem, MD; G. Anton Decker, MD; Dayna S. Early, MD; John A. Evans, MD; Robert D. Fanelli, MD; Deborah A. Fisher, MD; Laurel R. Fisher, MD; Norio Fukami, MD; Joo Ha Hwang, MD, PhD; Steven O. Ikenberry, MD; Rajeev Jain, MD; Terry L. Jue, MD; Khalid Khan, MD, NASPAGHAN Representative; Mary Lee Krinsky, DO; Phyllis M. Malpas, MA, RN, SGNA Representative; John T. Maple, DO; Ravi N. Sharaf, MD; Amandeep K. Shergill, MD; Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS ( Previous Chair ); Brooks D. Cash, MD ( Chair )
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
The following author disclosed a financial relationship relevant to this publication: Dr D.A. Fisher, consultant to Epigemonics. The other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Guideline Availability
Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Web site.
Print copies: Available from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1520 Kensington Road, Suite 202, Oak Brook, IL 60523
Availability of Companion Documents
None available
Patient Resources
None available
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on June 5, 2013.
Copyright Statement
This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer’s copyright restrictions.
Disclaimer
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.