Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio

AbstractBackgroundIdentifying branch‐duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD‐IPMNs) at lowest risk of progression may allow for a reduced intensity of surveillance.ObjectiveWe aimed to externally validate the previously developed Dutch‐American Risk stratification Tool (DART‐1; https://rtools.mayo.edu/DART/), which identifies cysts at low risk of developing worrisome features (WFs) or high‐risk stigmata (HRS).MethodsThree prospective cohorts of individuals under surveillance for BD‐IPMNs were combined, independent from the original development cohort. We assessed the performance (discrimination and calibration) of DART‐1, a multivariable Cox‐proportional logistic regression model with five predictors for the development of WFs or HRS.ResultsOf 832 individuals (mean age 77 years, SD 11.5) under surveillance for a median of 40 months (IQR 44), 163 (20%) developed WFs or HRS. DART‐1's discriminative ability (C‐statistic 0.68) was similar to that in the development cohort (0.64–0.72) and showed moderate calibration. DART‐1 adequately estimated the risk for patients in the middle risk quintile, and slightly underestimated it in the lowest quintiles. Their range of predicted versus observed 3‐year risk was 0%–0% versus 0%–3.7% for Q1; 0.3%–0.4% versus 3%–11% for Q2; and 2.6%–3% versus 2.4%–9.8% for Q3. The development of WFs or HRS was associated with pancreatic cancer (p < 0.001). Vice versa, in absence of WFs or HRS, the risk of malignancy was low (0.3%).ConclusionsThe performance of DART‐1 to predict the development of WFs or HRS in BD‐IPMN was validated in an external international cohort, with a discriminative ability equal as in the development cohort. Risk estimations were most accurate for patients with BD‐IPMNs in the middle risk quintile and slightly underestimated in the lowest quintiles.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD. Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.