ABSTRACT

This international, multidisciplinary consensus report represents the first effort to systematically define and characterize fatty pancreas. A key outcome of this endeavor was the recommendation to adopt “fatty pancreas” as the standardized and inclusive term to describe all forms of fat accumulation in the pancreas. This terminological consensus provides a critical foundation for unified reporting and clinical communication. Another major contribution of the report is the consensus on diagnostic imaging findings, which was based on radiological and endoscopic modalities. The proposed criteria aim to enhance consistency in clinical assessment and support the development of standardized research protocols. In addition to establishing terminology and diagnostic frameworks, the report also synthesizes current knowledge across a wide range of relevant domains. These include the etiology and epidemiology of fatty pancreas, as well as its associations with alcohol consumption, smoking, acute and chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and surgical outcomes. The potential links between fatty pancreas and neoplastic conditions such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and pancreatic cancer are also addressed, alongside the current understanding of its metabolic implications (beta-cell function and glucose homeostasis) and treatment strategies. Throughout the consensus process, a consistent theme emerged: the limited availability of high-quality, prospective clinical data. Therefore, many of the recommendations in this report are based on expert consensus rather than strong empirical evidence. As such, the statements require rigorous prospective validation before they can be adopted into routine clinical practice. This underscores a critical need for further research, particularly studies aimed at clarifying causal relationships, validating diagnostic tools, and determining the clinical relevance of fatty pancreas across diverse patient populations. This report serves as both a summary of our current understanding and a roadmap for future investigations, aiming to close existing knowledge gaps and guide evidence-based clinical practice in this emerging field.

Main recommendations

MR1

ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:

• a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy
• photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions
• use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification
• collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.

Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence.

MR2

ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for dif ferent BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies.For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.
Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence.

MR3

ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient’s life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered.
Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence.

MR4

ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.
Strong recommendation, high level of evidence

MR5

ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.
Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

MR6

ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).
Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

MR7

ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett’s cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.
Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

MR8

ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 μm AND no [lympho] vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.
Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence.

MR9

ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 μm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.
Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence

MR10a

ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.
Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence.

MR10b

ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neosquamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.
Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence.

MR10c

ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.
Strong recommendation, low level of evidence

MR10d

ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining fourquadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.
Weak recommendation, low level of evidence.

MR10e

ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.
Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence.

MR11

After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:

• For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC: at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.
• For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD: at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.

Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Abstract

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m², or with a BMI of 27.0–29.9 kg/m² with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Since the publication of the first European Society for the Study of Coeliac Disease (ESsCD) guidelines in 2019, substantial advances have been made in understanding the management and complex disease courses of coeliac disease (CeD) in adults. These 2025 updated guidelines aim to integrate new evidence, refine management strategies, and promote a personalised and multidisciplinary approach to care.

Methods

The ESsCD convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to revise the 2019 guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) framework. Evidence was appraised and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Statements and recommendations were draughted within working groups and finalised through a structured Delphi consensus process.

Results

The updated guidelines are presented in two parts. Part 1, which has already been published, addresses the diagnostic approach to CeD in adults, whereas Part 2 focuses on disease management, structured follow-up, and the evaluation and treatment of persistent symptoms despite a gluten-free diet or refractory disease. New or expanded sections include guidance on the safe inclusion of oats, use of low-FODMAP diets in patients with persistent symptoms, management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, recognition of functional asplenia and related vaccination recommendations, and stratified bone-health screening. The guidelines also discuss nutritional and psychosocial support, digital models of care, and structured transition from paediatric to adult services. Updated therapeutic strategies for refractory CeD are provided, including immunosuppressive and novel pharmacologic options.

Conclusions

These updated guidelines offer a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for the management and follow-up of adults with CeD. By integrating recent scientific advances with pragmatic, patient-centred recommendations, they seek to optimise clinical outcomes, quality of life, and long-term health in individuals with CeD.