Skip to main content

The AHRQ National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC, guideline.gov) Web site will not be available after July 16, 2018 because federal funding
through AHRQ will no longer be available to support the NGC as of that date. For additional information, read our full announcement.
  • Guideline Summary
  • NGC:009750
  • 2013 Feb

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia.

ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Anderson MA, Appalaneni V, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fisher DA, Fisher LR, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Ikenberry SO, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan K, Krinsky ML, Malpas PM, Maple JT, Sharaf RN, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA, Cash BD. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Feb;77(2):167-74. [115 references] PubMed External Web Site Policy

View the original guideline documentation External Web Site Policy

This is the current release of the guideline.

Age Group

UMLS Concepts (what is this?)

Major Recommendations

Definitions for the quality of the evidence (++++, +++O, ++OO, and +OOO) and for the strength of the recommendations ("recommends" or "suggests") are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

  • The Practice Committee recommends that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) be performed in patients with suspected ampullary adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma if the EUS findings or positive fine needle aspiration (FNA) results would change management (+++O).
  • The Practice Committee recommends magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) to assess for resectability if a computed tomography (CT) scan suggests cholangiocarcinoma, particularly of the bifurcation. If the lesion is unresectable, endoscopic palliation of jaundice should be performed by using MRC as a guide for unilateral drainage to minimize the risk of cholangitis (++++).
  • The Practice Committee recommends endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to obtain tissue or facilitate further evaluation of indeterminate strictures (+++O).
  • The Practice Committee recommends that symptomatic patients with gallbladder polyp (GBP) undergo cholecystectomy (+++O).
  • The Practice Committee suggests that asymptomatic patients with a GBP larger than 10 mm undergo cholecystectomy (++OO).
  • The Practice Committee suggests that asymptomatic patients with a GBP 6 mm to 10 mm in size and without other risk factors for gallbladder cancer be followed by transabdominal ultrasound (TUS) every 12 months (++OO).
  • The Practice Committee recommends that the presence of any GBP should prompt cholecystectomy in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) (+++O).

Definitions:

GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) System for Rating the Quality of Evidence for Guidelines

Quality of Evidence Definition Symbol
High quality Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect. ++++
Moderate quality Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. +++O
Low quality Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. ++OO
Very low quality Any estimate of effect is very uncertain. +OOO

Adapted from Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.

Recommendation Strength

The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "the Practice Committee suggests," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as "the Practice Committee recommends."

Clinical Algorithm(s)

None provided

Disease/Condition(s)

Biliary neoplasia, including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder polyps, and adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder

Guideline Category

Diagnosis

Evaluation

Treatment

Clinical Specialty

Gastroenterology

Intended Users

Physicians

Guideline Objective(s)

To review the approach to the evaluation and treatment of the patient with suspected biliary neoplasia

Target Population

Adults with suspected biliary neoplasia

Interventions and Practices Considered

  1. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)
  2. Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC)
  3. Endoscopic palliation of jaundice
  4. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
  5. Cholecystectomy
  6. Transabdominal ultrasound (TUS)

Major Outcomes Considered

  • Sensitivity, specificity and predictability of diagnostic tests for diagnosis and classification
  • Safety and effectiveness of endoscopic procedures
  • Effectiveness of endoscopic approaches to treatment

Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)

Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)

Searches of Electronic Databases

Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature for the years 1980 to 2012 was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts.

Number of Source Documents

Not stated

Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence

Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence

GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) System for Rating the Quality of Evidence for Guidelines

Quality of Evidence Definition Symbol
High quality Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect. ++++
Moderate quality Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. +++O
Low quality Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. ++OO
Very low quality Any estimate of effect is very uncertain. +OOO

Adapted from Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.

Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Review of Published Meta-Analyses

Systematic Review

Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Not stated

Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Expert Consensus

Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted.

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations

The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "the Practice Committee suggests," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as "the Practice Committee recommends."

Cost Analysis

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.

Method of Guideline Validation

Internal Peer Review

Description of Method of Guideline Validation

This document is a product of the Standards of Practice Committee. The document was reviewed and approved by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

Potential Benefits

Appropriate use of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of biliary neoplasia

Potential Harms

  • Risk of post-procedural cholangitis or pancreatitis
  • Complications related to procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). If the level of obstruction is at or above the hilum, extensive injection of contrast in ERCP should be avoided to minimize the risk of postprocedural cholangitis because the entire biliary tree may not drain adequately. Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) can be helpful in defining ductal anatomy before ERCP to reduce the risk of this adverse event.

Qualifying Statements

  • Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice.
  • This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

Description of Implementation Strategy

An implementation strategy was not provided.

IOM Care Need

Getting Better

Living with Illness

Staying Healthy

IOM Domain

Effectiveness

Patient-centeredness

Safety

Bibliographic Source(s)

ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Anderson MA, Appalaneni V, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fisher DA, Fisher LR, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Ikenberry SO, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan K, Krinsky ML, Malpas PM, Maple JT, Sharaf RN, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA, Cash BD. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Feb;77(2):167-74. [115 references] PubMed External Web Site Policy

Adaptation

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

Date Released

2013 Feb

Guideline Developer(s)

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy - Medical Specialty Society

Source(s) of Funding

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Guideline Committee

Standards of Practice Committee

Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline

Committee Members: Michelle A. Anderson, MD; Vasu Appalaneni, MD; Tamir Ben-Menachem, MD; G. Anton Decker, MD; Dayna S. Early, MD; John A. Evans, MD; Robert D. Fanelli, MD; Deborah A. Fisher, MD; Laurel R. Fisher, MD; Norio Fukami, MD; Joo Ha Hwang, MD, PhD; Steven O. Ikenberry, MD; Rajeev Jain, MD; Terry L. Jue, MD; Khalid Khan, MD, NASPAGHAN Representative; Mary Lee Krinsky, DO; Phyllis M. Malpas, MA, RN, SGNA Representative; John T. Maple, DO; Ravi N. Sharaf, MD; Amandeep K. Shergill, MD; Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS (Previous Chair); Brooks D. Cash, MD (Chair)

Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

The following author disclosed a financial relationship relevant to this publication: Dr D.A. Fisher, consultant to Epigemonics. The other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Guideline Availability

Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Web site External Web Site Policy.

Print copies: Available from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1520 Kensington Road, Suite 202, Oak Brook, IL 60523

Availability of Companion Documents

None available

Patient Resources

None available

NGC Status

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on June 5, 2013.

Copyright Statement

This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions.

NGC Disclaimer

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria.

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.