Summary

Extrahepatic abdominal surgery in patients with cirrhosis of the liver represents a growing clinical challenge due to the increasing prevalence of chronic liver disease and improved long-term survival of these patients. The presence of cirrhosis significantly increases the risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality following abdominal surgery. Advances in preoperative risk stratification, surgical techniques, and perioperative care have led to better outcomes, yet integration of these improvements into routine clinical practice is needed. These clinical practice guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for the assessment and perioperative management of patients with cirrhosis undergoing extrahepatic abdominal surgery. An individualised patient-centred risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team including hepatologists, surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and other support teams is essential.

Main recommendations

1  ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m2] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

2 ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2–4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3–6 months in the first year following eradication.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

3 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70–90 g/L is desired.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

4 ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child–Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.
Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence.

5 ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

6 ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

7 ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications,intravenous erythromycin 250mg be given 30–120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

8 ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

9 ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

10 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child–Pugh C ≤ 13 or Child–Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

11 ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

12 ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

13 ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.
Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence.

14 ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

15 ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

16 ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Main recommendations

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

Objectives

Diagnostic imaging of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and colorectal cancer remains pivotal in selecting the most appropriate treatment and balancing clinical benefit with treatment-related morbidity and mortality. To address the challenges related to diagnostic imaging and detecting and reporting peritoneal metastatic spread, a joint guideline was created by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI), and European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

Methods

A targeted literature search was performed and consensus recommendations were proposed using Delphi questionnaires and a five-point Likert scale.

Results

A total of three Delphi rounds were performed. Consensus was reached on the position of diagnostic imaging for assessment of operability, treatment response monitoring, and follow-up of peritoneal metastases, optimal imaging modality and their technical imaging requirements depending on the indication and how to optimise communication of imaging results by the report and multidisciplinary board discussion. The complete list of recommendations is provided.

Conclusion

These expert consensus statements aim to guide appropriate indications, acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of imaging for operability assessment, treatment response monitoring, and follow-up of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and colorectal cancer patients.

Key Points

Question Staging peritoneal metastases (PM) helps to guide clinical decision-making for colorectal and ovarian cancer patients. How can we optimise the use of imaging techniques to assess PM?

Findings Imaging plays a crucial role in the detection, operability assessment, treatment response monitoring, and follow-up of peritoneal metastases in colorectal and ovarian cancer patients.

Clinical relevance These expert consensus statements aim to guide appropriate indication, acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of imaging for operability assessment, treatment response monitoring, and follow-up of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and colorectal cancer patients.