Mário Dinis-Ribeiro

Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS): guideline from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter Study Group (EHSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and the Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED)

Atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, and epithelial dysplasia of the stomach are common and are associated with an increased risk for gastric cancer. In the absence of guidelines, there is wide disparity in the management of patients with these premalignant conditions. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Helicobacter Study Group (EHSG), the European Society of Pathology (ESP) and the Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) have therefore combined efforts to develop evidence-based guidelines on the management of patients with precancerous conditions and lesions of the stomach (termed MAPS). A multidisciplinary group of 63 experts from 24 countries developed these recommendations by means of repeat online voting and a meeting in June 2011 in Porto, Portugal. The recommendations emphasize the increased cancer risk in patients with gastric atrophy and metaplasia, and the need for adequate staging in the case of high grade dysplasia, and they focus on treatment and surveillance indications and methods.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions.1 In the low risk group (patients with 1 - 2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm with low grade dysplasia), the ESGE recommends participation in existing national screening programmes 10 years after the index colonoscopy. If no screening programme is available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In the high risk group (patients with adenomas with villous histology or high grade dysplasia or ≥10 mm in size, or ≥ 3 adenomas), the ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after the index colonoscopy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Patients with 10 or more adenomas should be referred for genetic counselling (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 In the high risk group, if no high risk adenomas are detected at the first surveillance examination, the ESGE suggests a 5-year interval before a second surveillance colonoscopy (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). If high risk adenomas are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, a 3-year repetition of surveillance colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).4 The ESGE recommends that patients with serrated polyps < 10 mm in size with no dysplasia should be classified as low risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). The ESGE suggests that patients with large serrated polyps (≥ 10 mm) or those with dysplasia should be classified as high risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).5 The ESGE recommends that the endoscopist is responsible for providing a written recommendation for the post-polypectomy surveillance schedule (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

UNLABELLED This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barretts esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 - 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 - 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 - 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Meta-analysis on the validity of pepsinogen test for gastric carcinoma, dysplasia or chronic atrophic gastritis screening

Aim: To assess the validity of the measurement of pepsinogen I and II as a screening test for gastric cancer and pre-malignant lesions, namely low-grade dysplasia, both in the general population and in selected groups of patients. Methods: A meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity results from individual papers on the use of the pepsinogen test. An intrinsic cut-off effect was assumed and a random effect model was used for pooling. Results: Forty-two data sets were included: 27 (64%) population-based screening studies (n=296,553) and 15 (36%) sets of selected individuals (n=4385). Homogenous sensitivity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) estimates were found in studies using both pepsinogen I levels and pepsinogen I/II ratio calculations. Pooled pairs of sensitivity and false positive rates (FPr) for pepsinogen I ≤ 70; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤ 3, pepsinogen I ≤50; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤ 3, and pepsinogen I ≤ 30; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤ 2, were sensitivity 77%/FPr 27%, sensitivity 68%/FPr 31%, and sensitivity 52%/FPr 84%, respectively. Positive predictive values (PPV) varied between 0.77% and 1.25%, and negative predictive values (NPV) varied between 99.08% and 99.90%. In selected groups, pooling was only possible when considering pepsinogen I ≤ 70; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤ 3: giving sensitivity 57%, specificity 80%, PPV 15% and NPV 83%. As for the diagnosis of dysplasia, studies considering pepsinogen I <50; pepsinogen I/II ratio <3 obtained sensitivity 65% and specificity ranging from 74%–85%, both with NPV >95%. Conclusion: Pepsinogen test definition should include pepsinogen I/II ratio as consistency was obtained, both in population based studies and in selected groups for those studies that used pepsinogen I serum levels together with pepsinogen I/II ratio for screening for gastric cancer in high-incidence regions other than Japan. Further studies of this test in the management of high-risk patients seem to be worthwhile.

Association of ERBB2 gene status with histopathological parameters and disease-specific survival in gastric carcinoma patients.

The clinical significance of ERBB2 amplification/overexpression in gastric cancer remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the ERBB2 status in 463 gastric carcinomas using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH), and compared the findings with histopathological characteristics and with disease-specific survival. ERBB2 overexpression (2+ and 3+) and amplification (ratio ERBB2/CEP17⩾2) were found in 43 (9.3%) and 38 (8.2%) gastric carcinomas, respectively. Perfect IHC/FISH correlation was found for the 19 cases scored as 0 (all negative by FISH), and also for the 25 cases scored as 3+ (all positive by FISH). One out of six carcinomas scored as 1+ and 12 out of 18 carcinomas scored as 2+ were positive by FISH. ERBB2 amplification was associated with gastric carcinomas of intestinal type (P=0.007) and with an expansive growth pattern (P=0.021). ERBB2 amplification was detected in both histological components of two mixed carcinomas, indicating a common clonal origin. A statistically significant association was found between ERBB2 amplification and worse survival in patients with expansive gastric carcinomas (P=0.011). We conclude that ERBB2 status may have clinical significance in subsets of gastric cancer patients, and that further studies are warranted to evaluate whether patients whose gastric carcinomas present ERBB2 amplification/overexpression may benefit from therapy targeting this surface receptor.

Current practice with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: position statement from a panel of experts

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold standard technique for performing en bloc resection of large superficial tumors in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Experience in Europe, however, is still limited and ESD is only performed in a few selected centers, with low volumes of cases, no description of training programs, and few published reports. In 2008, a panel of experts gathered in Rotterdam to discuss indications, training, and the wider use of ESD. The panel of experts and participants reached a consensus on five general statements: 1) ESD aims at treating mucosal cancer; 2) treatment aims for R0 resection; 3) ESD should meet quality standards; 4) ESD should be performed following national or European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines or under institutional review board approval; and 5) ESD cases should be registered. Due to the high level of expertise needed to perform the technique safely, ESD should be performed in a step-up approach, starting with lesions presenting in the rectum or in the distal stomach, then colon, proximal stomach, and finally in the esophagus. Registration is advised either at the local site or at a national or ESGE level, and should include information on indication (Paris classification of lesion, location, and histological results prior to treatment), technique used (e. g. type of knife), results (en bloc and R0 resection), complications, and follow-up. The panel also agreed on minimal institutional requirements: good quality imaging, experienced histopathologist following the Japanese criteria (2-mm sections, micrometric invasion, vessel and lymphatic infiltration, etc), and dedicated endoscopic follow-up. Moreover, minimum training requirements were also defined: knowledge in indications and instruments, exposure to experts (currently all in Japan), hands-on experience in a model of isolated pig stomach and in live pigs, and management of complications. The experts did not reach a consensus on a minimum case load, or whether the technique should be restricted to expert centers.

A European case series of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric superficial lesions

BACKGROUND EMR is an accepted method for resection of superficial lesions in the GI tract. However, because it leads, not unusually, to piecemeal resection, histopathologic interpretation problems and an increased risk of recurrence are noticeable. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows a higher rate of en bloc resection, with low recurrence. Nevertheless, this technique, namely in the upper-GI tract, has rarely been described in Western countries, probably because of the rarity of gastric cancer in most countries. OBJECTIVE To describe the efficacy and safety of ESD for gastric superficial lesions in a European country. DESIGN Consecutive case-series report. SETTING A tertiary specialized center. PATIENTS Nineteen patients with gastric superficial lesions (15-30 mm), with high-grade (n = 15) or low-grade (n = 4) noninvasive epithelial neoplasias, in the antrum (n = 12), incisura angularis (n = 2), body (n = 3), and cardia (n = 2). INTERVENTION ESD with the patient under general anesthesia in the endoscopic room (40-300 minutes) by using an insulated-tip-knife. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Complete (R0) and en bloc resection, and complications. RESULTS ESD was achieved in all cases, with 89% R0 resection and 79% en bloc resection rates observed. Major bleeding was reported in 1 case (5%); there were no cases of perforation. With a median follow-up of 10 months, a single recurrence (5%) was observed. LIMITATIONS A small series at a single center, with a short median follow-up time. CONCLUSION We report the feasibility and effectiveness of gastric ESD in Europe. A further description of a Western series is expected, and guidelines for its dissemination are desirable to define the role of this technique in Western countries.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority and we described our rationale for this in a first manuscript that also addressed the methodology of the quality initiative process.1 The identification of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) performance measures presents a considerable challenge, in contrast to the situation with colonoscopy for instance, where several performance measures (inspection time, adenoma detection rate, and interval cancers, among others) have been identified over the last decade.2,3 Following the Quality in UGI Endoscopy meeting held in Lisbon in 2013, it was clear that there was a need to identify performance measures for the UGI tract, and that quality standards could be identified although there is a paucity of evidence. This lack of evidence helps however to identify research priorities for the development of clinical trials that will further validate and substantiate the implementation of performance measures. The aim therefore of the UGI working group was twofold: (a) to identify performance measures for UGI endoscopy; (b) to identify the evidence or absence of evidence that would develop the research priorities in this field. We used an innovative methodology to facilitate the quality initiative process, which combined a thorough search and standardized evaluation of the available evidence for each clinical question, followed by a Delphi process (http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf) using an online platform.4,5 This online platform permitted iterative rounds of modification and comment by all members of the UGI working group until agreement was reached on the performance measure. We now report these newly identified performance measures.

A follow up model for patients with atrophic chronic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia

Aim: To devise a follow up model for patients with gastric cancer associated lesions, such as atrophic chronic gastritis (ACG) and intestinal metaplasia (IM). Methods: Cohort study of 144 patients, followed for a minimum of one year, in whom at least two upper gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsies in flat gastric mucosa provided a diagnosis of ACG, IM, or low grade dysplasia (LGD). Results: Of those diagnosed with ACG at first endoscopic biopsy (entry biopsy), 12% progressed to LGD in outcome biopsy, as did 8% of those with type I IM, 38% with type II or III IM, and 32% with LGD. Type of IM at entry independently predicted progression to LGD and cancer. Type II and III IM had a higher rate of progression to LGD than type I IM, which showed an indolent behaviour similar to ACG. Patients with type II or III IM were at higher risk for development of dysplasia, and 7% of patients with type III IM at first biopsy progressed to high grade dysplasia (HGD), whereas no cases of ACG or type I/II IM progressed to HGD during the first three years. Conclusion: Patients with ACG or IM could possibly be allocated to different management schedules, based on differences in rate and proportion of progression to LGD or HGD. Less intensive follow up (two/three yearly with “serological evaluation” (pepsinogen)) may suit those with ACG or type I IM. Patients with type III IM may benefit from six to 12 monthly improved endoscopic examination (magnification chromoendoscopy).