Both acute and chronic pancreatitis are frequent diseases of the pancreas, which, despite being of benign nature, are related to a significant risk of malnutrition and may require nutritional support. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is encountered in 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and may require artificial nutrition by enteral or parenteral route, as well as additional endoscopic, radiological or surgical interventions. Chronic pancreatitis represents a chronic inflammation of the pancreatic gland with development of fibrosis. Abdominal pain leading to decreased oral intake, as well as exocrine and endocrine failure are frequent complications of the disease. All of the above represent risk factors related to malnutrition. Therefore, patients with chronic pancreatitis should be considered at risk, screened and supplemented accordingly. Moreover, osteoporosis and increased facture risk should be acknowledged in patients with chronic pancreatitis, and preventive measures should be considered.

Keywords: Acute pancreatitis, Chronic pancreatitis, Pancreatic diseases, Nutrition, Nutritional support, Medical Nutrition

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

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.

Malignant disease

1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.

Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

2 ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.

Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

4 ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Benign disease

5 ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

6 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures.

Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

7 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability.

Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

8 ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

9 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized.

Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

10 ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

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.