Introduction

Microscopic colitis is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterised by normal or almost normal endoscopic appearance of the colon, chronic watery, nonbloody diarrhoea and distinct histological abnormalities, which identify three histological subtypes, the collagenous colitis, the lymphocytic colitis and the incomplete microscopic colitis. With ongoing uncertainties and new developments in the clinical management of microscopic colitis, there is a need for evidence-based guidelines to improve the medical care of patients suffering from this disorder.

Methods

Guidelines were developed by members from the European Microscopic Colitis Group and United European Gastroenterology in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Following a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Statements and recommendations were developed by working groups consisting of gastroenterologists, pathologists and basic scientists, and voted upon using the Delphi method.

Results

These guidelines provide information on epidemiology and risk factors of microscopic colitis, as well as evidence-based statements and recommendations on diagnostic criteria and treatment options, including oral budesonide, bile acid binders, immunomodulators and biologics. Recommendations on the clinical management of microscopic colitis are provided based on evidence, expert opinion and best clinical practice.

Conclusion

These guidelines may support clinicians worldwide to improve the clinical management of patients with microscopic colitis.

Keywords: budesonide, diarrhoea, inflammatory bowel disease, microscopic colitis

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.

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