ESGE recommends that individuals with Lynch syndrome should be followed in dedicated units that practice monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

ESGE recommends starting colonoscopy surveillance at the age of 25 years for MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers and at the age of 35 years for MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

ESGE recommends the routine use of high-definition endoscopy systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.

Strong recommendation, high quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

ESGE suggests the use of chromoendoscopy may be of benefit in individuals with Lynch syndrome undergoing colonoscopy; however routine use must be balanced against costs, training, and practical considerations.

Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 89%.

ESGE recommends definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer as the presence of at least two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or at least one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer before the age of 50 years.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 92%.

ESGE recommends colonoscopy surveillance in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in families that fulfill the definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

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.

1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

3 When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.
Very low quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

4 Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

5 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.
Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

6 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.
Very low quality evidence.

7 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.
Very low quality evidence.

8 ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

9 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp >= 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.
Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 – 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

These recommendations refer to the current management in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a neoplasia characterised by an aggressive course and extremely poor prognosis. The recommendations regard diagnosis, surgical, adjuvant and palliative treatment, with consideration given to endoscopic and surgical methods. A vast majority of the statements are based on data obtained in clinical studies and experts’ recommendations on PDAC management, including the following guidelines: International Association of Pancreatology/European Pancreatic Club (IAP/EPC), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Polish Society of Gastroenterology (PSG) and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). All recommendations were voted on by members of the Working Group of the Polish Pancreatic Club. Results of the voting and brief comments are provided with each recommendation.

Keywords: pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; recommendations; guidelines; treatment; diagnosis