Importance

The lack of multidisciplinary workflow guidelines and clear definitions and classifications for neoplasms in and around the ampulla of Vater results in inconsistencies affecting patient care and research.

Objective

The PERIPAN international multidisciplinary consensus group aimed to standardize the multidisciplinary diagnostic workflow and achieve consensus on definitions and classifications in order to ensure proper classification and optimal diagnostic assessment and consequently to improve patient care and future research.

Design

An international team of 43 experts (pathologists, surgeons, radiologists, gastroenterologists, oncologists) from 12 countries identified knowledge gaps, reviewed 37061 articles, and proposed recommendations using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology (SIGN), including the Delphi methodology and the AGREEII tool for quality assessment and external validation.

Results

The 38 consensus questions and 51 recommendations provide guidance on the following key aspects: I. More specific anatomic criteria for the definition of what qualifies as “ampullary” neoplasms, their distinction from duodenal and common bile duct tumors, and clinicopathologic characteristics of anatomic subsets; II. Avoidance of the confusing term “periampullary” for final classification; III. Refined definitions of intestinal, pancreatobiliary and mixed subtypes, and introduction of rare histologic subtypes; IV. The use and limitations of immunohistochemical and molecular profiling; V. Biopsy acquisition; VI. Clinical information required for accurate pathology assessment of biopsies and ampullectomy specimens; VII. Key items to be included in pathology reports of endoscopic specimens.

Conclusions and Relevance

Recognition of the Brescia PERIPAN guidelines will allow a more accurate classification of true ampullary cancers and their differentiation from other “periampullary” tumors. This will have significant implications for endoscopic interpretation and management, staging, pathologic diagnosis and therapeutic evaluation as well as oncologic treatment of various anatomic and histologic subsets of ampullary tumors. This will enhance the quality of both clinical care and future research in this complex medical field.

Background: Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting.

Objective: We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology.

Methods: We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.

Results: This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494.

Conclusions: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.

Keywords: Rectal cancer · TaTME · Transanal TME · Clinical practice guideline · GRADE · EAES

Additional resource: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LGm87E

1 ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center.

2 ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied.

3 ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan.

4 ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed.

5 ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

In hospitals through Europe and worldwide, the practices regarding hospital diets are very heterogeneous. Hospital diets are rarely prescribed by physicians, and sometimes the choices of diets are based on arbitrary reasons. Often prescriptions are made independently from the evaluation of nutritional status, and without taking into account the nutritional status. Therapeutic diets (low salt, gluten-free, texture and consistency modified, …) are associated with decreased energy delivery (i.e. underfeeding) and increased risk of malnutrition. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) proposes here evidence-based recommendations regarding the organization of food catering, the prescriptions and indications of diets, as well as monitoring of food intake at hospital, rehabilitation center, and nursing home, all of these by taking into account the patient perspectives. We propose a systematic approach to adapt the hospital food to the nutritional status and potential food allergy or intolerances. Particular conditions such as patients with dysphagia, older patients, gastrointestinal diseases, abdominal surgery, diabetes, and obesity, are discussed to guide the practitioner toward the best evidence based therapy. The terminology of the different useful diets is defined. The general objectives are to increase the awareness of physicians, dietitians, nurses, kitchen managers, and stakeholders towards the pivotal role of hospital food in hospital care, to contribute to patient safety within nutritional care, to improve coverage of nutritional needs by hospital food, and reduce the risk of malnutrition and its related complications.

Keywords: Acute care; Diets; Food intake; Malnutrition; Monitoring.

1 ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

2 ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

3 ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

4 ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

5 ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

6 ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

7 ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

8 ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

9 ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.