Endoscopic and Histological Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis: A Narrative Review.

Introduction and background

The core pathological hallmark of amyloidosis is the abnormal conformational change of native proteins into insoluble polymeric fibrils with a characteristic β-sheet structure. These fibrils deposit extensively in the extracellular matrix of multiple organs, including the heart, kidneys, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and respiratory system, gradually disrupting normal tissue architecture and function [ 1 , 2 ]. Clinically, amyloidosis is divided into systemic and localised forms [ 3 , 4 ], with the systemic variant carrying the poorest prognostic implications. Subtyping is based on the precursor protein and includes immunoglobulin light chain (AL), transthyretin (ATTR), serum amyloid A (AA) and β₂-microglobulin (Aβ₂M) types. These subtypes exhibit marked differences in pathophysiology, organ involvement and therapeutic options. AL amyloidosis is closely linked to clonal plasma cell dyscrasias, AA amyloidosis typically arises secondary to chronic inflammatory conditions, and ATTR amyloidosis encompasses both hereditary (mutant) and senile (wild-type) forms [ 1 , 2 , 5 - 24 ]. Accurate subtyping is therefore essential for guiding targeted management [ 25 - 34 ].

Gastrointestinal endoscopy with concurrent tissue biopsy remains the cornerstone for establishing pathological evidence of gastrointestinal amyloid involvement, and continued advancements in endoscopic imaging, biopsy sampling strategy and molecular tissue analysis have markedly enhanced the diagnostic yield of this approach [ 5 - 8 ]. This review summarises those developments and seeks to provide a practical, evidence-based framework to support clinicians in the early and accurate diagnosis of gastrointestinal amyloidosis. The literature search was conducted using a combination of electronic databases, MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar, filtered for studies published in English, between January 1990 and August 2026. The search strategy was broad to capture a combination of primary studies, review articles, published guidelines and consensus statements on gastrointestinal amyloidosis, focusing on its clinical presentations, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Search terms for MEDLINE included filtering for both "gastrointestinal" and "exp.Amyloidosis", i.e., the exploded Amyloidosis MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) term. For PubMed and Google Scholar, search terms included "amyloidosis" and "gastrointestinal", with additional combinations of "symptoms", "presentation", "systemic", "endoscopy", "pathology or histopathology", "treatment" and "prognosis".

Review

Endoscopic appearances of gastrointestinal amyloidosis

The gastrointestinal tract is frequently affected in systemic amyloidosis. Reported involvement rates vary widely with the study population and the diagnostic criteria applied [ 5 - 8 , 10 - 19 , 21 - 23 , 25 - 33 ]: gastrointestinal involvement was documented in 36.5% of a consecutive single-centre cohort of 63 patients with biopsy-proven amyloidosis [ 31 ]. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including chronic diarrhoea, abdominal pain, gastrointestinal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy and intestinal pseudo-obstruction, are notoriously non-specific [ 9 , 10 ]. They often mimic functional gastrointestinal disorders or inflammatory bowel disease, contributing to diagnostic delay or complete misdiagnosis [ 11 - 13 ].

Endoscopic findings in gastrointestinal amyloidosis are varied and can be grouped as follows: mucosal injury, polypoid and granular changes and motility disorders.

Mucosal Injury

Mucosal erosions, ulceration and spontaneous areas of bleeding are the most frequently encountered endoscopic abnormalities in gastrointestinal amyloidosis (Figure 1 and Figure 2 ). In a single-centre series of 63 patients with biopsy-proven amyloidosis, of whom 23 had gastrointestinal involvement, ulcers were identified in 47.8% and varying degrees of mucosal inflammation in 43.5% [ 31 ]. Histologically, these lesions result from amyloid deposition within the walls of submucosal and mucosal vessels, which considerably increases vascular fragility. This means that even minor trauma from the endoscope can precipitate mucosal damage and haemorrhage. Submucosal haematomas and haemorrhagic bullae, when present, are regarded as highly suggestive endoscopic clues [ 14 , 15 ].

In contrast to systemic disease, localised gastrointestinal amyloidosis is characterised by amyloid deposition confined to the gastrointestinal tract without evidence of systemic involvement. This occurrence is less common, accounting for approximately only 21% of biopsy-proven cases of gastrointestinal amyloidosis and carries an excellent prognosis with no progression to systemic disease [ 4 , 8 , 16 ].

Polypoid and Granular Changes

Polypoid elevations, nodular protrusions and a fine granular mucosal appearance are also commonly described (Figure 3 and Figure 4 ). In a seminal study of 37 patients with systemic amyloidosis, Tada et al. [ 17 ] observed a fine granular appearance in the duodenum of 26 (70%) patients, most prominently in the second portion. These granules were whitish and measured 1-3 millimetres in diameter. Larger multiple yellowish-white polypoid protrusions (4-10 millimetres) were noted in 2 (5%) patients [ 17 ].

Motility Disorders

In a subset of patients, the endoscopic mucosal appearance is unremarkable despite clinically significant symptoms such as intractable constipation, intestinal pseudo-obstruction or gastroparesis. In these cases, the underlying pathophysiology is amyloid infiltration of the muscularis propria or the enteric nervous system, with relative sparing of the mucosal layer. Reliance on superficial mucosal biopsies alone therefore carries a high risk of false-negative results and diagnostic delay [ 15 ].

Overall, endoscopy still remains a valuable but imperfect tool in the diagnostic workup of patients suspected of gastrointestinal amyloidosis. Its principal advantage lies in enabling direct tissue acquisition, particularly from the duodenum and jejunum, which offers the highest diagnostic yield [ 12 , 15 , 17 - 19 , 32 , 33 ]. Its limitations are equally important to consider. For example, endoscopic appearances of the gastrointestinal tract are often largely non-specific, and superficial biopsies may fail to capture deeper amyloid deposits, highlighting the importance of appropriate sampling depth and site selection.

Anatomical distribution of amyloid in the gastrointestinal tract

Unlike the relatively uniform deposition seen in parenchymal organs such as the liver and kidneys, amyloid distribution within the gastrointestinal tract shows marked segmental variation, layer-specific distribution and pathological subtype specificity (Figure 5 and Figure 6 ). The small intestine is the segment most frequently affected [ 3 ], with involvement most pronounced in the duodenum and proximal jejunum [ 12 , 15 , 17 - 19 , 32 , 33 ]. Isolated upper gastrointestinal amyloidosis, confined to the stomach and/or duodenum, represents a distinctive clinical entity with characteristic endoscopic features and a generally favourable prognosis [ 20 ]. This topographic distribution is closely linked to the physiological characteristics of these regions, namely, their rich submucosal vascular networks and high metabolic activity related to nutrient transport [ 3 , 17 , 33 ]. Extensive amyloid deposition in the small intestinal mucosa disrupts villous architecture and drastically reduces the absorptive surface area [ 25 ]. Concurrent infiltration of the submucosal vasculature contributes to local ischaemic change, culminating in the classic manifestations of malabsorption syndrome: steatorrhoea, impaired protein absorption and hypoalbuminaemia [ 9 , 10 ].

The colon is the second most frequently affected segment of the gastrointestinal tract. Deposits are most concentrated in the caecum and transverse colon, with often vessel wall infiltration. This markedly increases colonic mucosal fragility, making these sites common sources of occult or even massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding [ 21 , 22 ].

Gastric involvement is somewhat less common than small intestinal or colonic disease. Deposits are predominantly localised to the antrum and body, and primarily affect the muscularis propria and submucosal neural structures [ 11 , 23 ]. This directly impairs gastric emptying, manifesting as gastroparesis with early satiety, postprandial fullness, nausea and vomiting, alongside non-specific dyspeptic symptoms [ 9 , 14 , 26 ]. Endoscopic findings often include diffuse mucosal thickening and markedly reduced peristalsis [ 23 ]. Oesophageal involvement is the least common. Deposits usually accumulate selectively within the muscularis propria and nerve plexuses of the middle and lower oesophagus, with relative sparing of the superficial mucosa [ 23 ].

In general, amyloid deposition follows a vertical gradient: submucosa → muscularis mucosae → lamina propria (Figure 6 ). The duodenum is the single most reliable gastrointestinal biopsy site, as it most consistently captures submucosal amyloid, where deposits are concentrated [ 15 , 17 ]. Gastric and colonic biopsies may be contributory, but their diagnostic yield is lower and more variable. Rectal biopsy, previously a mainstay, is now considered inferior to fat pad aspiration or duodenal sampling [ 24 ].

Distribution amongst pathological subtypes and its clinical significance

There are significant differences in the anatomical distribution of amyloid deposits amongst the different types of systemic amyloidosis. In a study carried out by Harris et al. [ 33 ], 62 out of 195 GI biopsies showed amyloid involvement in the luminal tract, of which AL amyloidosis was the most commonly identified subtype (60%), followed by AA amyloidosis (19%) and ATTR (16%). Notably, the duodenum is the most high-yield site, being detected in 37/37 biopsies (100%), followed by the colon (63/74, 85%) [ 33 ].

In AL amyloidosis, gastrointestinal deposits are focal and nodular in pattern, with endoscopy findings of multiple nodular elevations in the gastric mucosa and marked thickening of bowel wall folds. As a result, patients with this distribution are more prone to gastrointestinal bleeding and significant gastric motility disorders [ 14 ]. Gastrointestinal deposits in AA amyloidosis, by contrast, are characterised predominantly by a diffuse, fine granular distribution with extensive involvement of the mucosal surface, and these patients often present with more prominent malabsorption [ 25 ]. Deposits in ATTR amyloidosis are relatively rare and tend to be localised within the muscularis propria and neural structures [ 26 ]. Clinically, the condition often presents initially with intractable constipation [ 27 ].

Clarifying these distribution characteristics offers valuable guidance for diagnosis and management. In patients with a high suspicion of gastrointestinal amyloidosis but no obvious mucosal abnormality at endoscopy, superficial mucosal biopsies are insufficient. Therefore, deep biopsies should instead be performed at high-yield sites, such as the descending duodenum (D2), to ensure the inclusion of submucosal blood vessels and deeper tissue, thereby increasing the biopsy true positivity rate [ 15 , 28 ]. Follow-up and monitoring protocols can also be tailored to the distribution preferences of specific subtypes, enabling early identification of the risk of serious complications such as intestinal obstruction or massive haemorrhage [ 14 , 26 , 27 ].

The endoscopic features of the four major subtypes and a comparison of biopsy positivity rates across gastrointestinal sites are summarised in Table 1 [ 15 , 29 - 31 , 33 ].

Prognostic implications of gastrointestinal involvement

Gastrointestinal involvement in amyloidosis is clinically important not only for symptom management but also as a marker of disease progression. In AL amyloidosis, patients with biopsy-proven gastrointestinal involvement have been shown to have a higher burden of cardiac involvement and more advanced disease stage than those without gastrointestinal symptoms [ 32 ]. The presence of gastrointestinal symptoms has been associated with worse overall survival, although gastrointestinal bleeding is itself rarely the direct cause of death [ 22 ]. In ATTR amyloidosis, gastrointestinal manifestations, particularly weight loss and diarrhoea, contribute significantly to malnutrition and functional decline, adversely affecting quality of life and survival for patients [ 9 ]. Early recognition and supportive management of gastrointestinal symptoms are therefore essential components of comprehensive amyloidosis care, alongside disease-modifying therapy [ 5 ].

Pathological diagnosis and typing techniques

Amyloid deposition in the gastrointestinal tract can present with several distinct interstitial patterns, including muscularis mucosae deposition, peri-Brunner gland deposition, mass-forming amyloidoma, collagenous colitis-like and globular deposition. Recognition of these patterns is crucial to avoid misinterpretation, as amyloid may be mistaken for reactive gastropathy, fibrosis or collagenous colitis [ 33 ].

Congo Red Staining

Congo red staining, in conjunction with polarised light microscopy, remains the gold standard for the definitive diagnosis of amyloidosis. Deposits appear red-orange on conventional light microscopy and exhibit characteristic apple-green birefringence under polarised light (Figure 7 ) [ 34 , 35 ]. The technique confirms the presence of amyloid material; however, it cannot differentiate between different amyloid precursor proteins.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC)

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) enables amyloid subtyping using specific antibodies against precursor proteins, including AA, kappa and lambda light chains, transthyretin (TTR) and β₂-microglobulin (β₂M). IHC results are, however, influenced by antibody specificity, tissue fixation conditions and accurate antigen retrieval methods. Non-specific staining and cross-reactivity between antibodies may occur, potentially complicating interpretation [ 36 , 37 ].

Laser Microdissection With Mass Spectrometry

This precision typing technique enables subtype confirmation through direct identification of the amino acid sequences of deposited proteins and is regarded as one of the reference standards for amyloid typing. It is particularly valuable in complex patient cases where immunohistochemical results are inconclusive or mixed-type deposits are suspected. Its reliance on specialised equipment and technical expertise limits availability, and it is not yet widely accessible outside large tertiary centres [ 37 - 39 ].

A stepwise pathological approach to the detection and typing of gastrointestinal amyloidosis is summarised in Figure 8 .

Progress in the standardisation of biopsy strategies

Multisite Sampling

Amyloid deposits are distributed in a patchy, non-uniform manner throughout the gastrointestinal tract, and reliance on single-site biopsies carries a substantial risk of false-negative results [ 33 ]. Current consensus therefore recommends systematic multisite sampling from a minimum of three sites: the descending duodenum, the gastric antrum and the gastric body. In patients whose predominant symptoms are lower gastrointestinal in origin, biopsies should also be obtained from both the colon and the rectum. Importantly, when amyloidosis is clinically suspected, biopsies should be taken even if the mucosa appears endoscopically normal, as amyloid may be present in macroscopically unremarkable areas [ 15 , 29 ]. The duodenum offers the highest diagnostic yield and should be prioritised, especially when submucosal involvement is suspected [ 15 ].

Deep-Tissue Sampling

Sampling depth is a critical determinant of diagnostic sensitivity. Amyloid deposits localise predominantly to the submucosa and vessel walls, whereas conventional superficial forceps biopsies typically sample only the mucosal layer, significantly increasing the likelihood of false-negative results. Large-capacity forceps should therefore be used to obtain "deep bite" biopsies that include submucosal tissue, since the target area lies beneath the muscularis mucosae (Figure 6 ). Where submucosal involvement is suspected, but standard biopsies are negative or technically challenging, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) can be used to obtain deeper tissue biopsies [ 27 , 28 , 39 , 40 ]. This approach is particularly valuable in localised gastric amyloidosis presenting as a submucosal lesion, where mucosal biopsies are often non-diagnostic [ 39 ].

Multiple Targeted Biopsies

The number of samples taken directly influences diagnostic yield, and current evidence supports obtaining two to three samples from each target site. In patients with high clinical suspicion and initial negative results, repeat biopsy should be strongly considered [ 15 ]. In patients with significant vascular fragility due to amyloid angiopathy, repeated or deep biopsies may increase the risk of bleeding. The potential diagnostic benefit must therefore be balanced against the risk of complications, and the procedure tailored to the individual patient's clinical status and coagulation profile. A multidisciplinary diagnostic pathway incorporating clinical suspicion, cardiac assessment, plasma cell dyscrasia screening, scintigraphy and tissue biopsy has been proposed to facilitate early and efficient diagnosis. This is highlighted in previously published reviews by Taylor et al. [ 9 ] and Jimenez-Zepeda et al. [ 41 ] for the diagnosis and management of amyloidosis.

Alternative Biopsy Sites

In patients with suspected systemic amyloidosis in whom endoscopic biopsy is contraindicated or technically difficult, abdominal fat pad aspiration or surgical excision biopsy offers a less invasive alternative. This approach has good sensitivity for AL amyloidosis (70%-90%) but a lower yield for ATTR, particularly the wild-type form, and should not replace endoscopic biopsy when gastrointestinal involvement is specifically suspected [ 24 , 35 ].

Treatment implications of accurate amyloid subtyping

Accurate subtyping of amyloid deposits has direct and urgent therapeutic implications. In AL amyloidosis, treatment is directed at eradicating the underlying clonal plasma cell dyscrasia using chemotherapy regimens such as daratumumab, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (Dara-CyBorD), with autologous stem cell transplantation reserved for eligible patients [ 9 ]. In ATTR amyloidosis, management focuses on stabilising the transthyretin tetramer or suppressing hepatic TTR production, depending on the presence of cardiomyopathy or polyneuropathy [ 9 ]. In AA amyloidosis, the cornerstone of treatment is aggressive control of the underlying inflammatory or infectious condition with biologic agents such as anti-TNF or anti-IL6 therapies [ 25 ]. Misclassification, for example, treating ATTR amyloidosis as AL exposes patients to unnecessary chemotherapy with potentially fatal toxicity whilst withholding the appropriate therapy [ 2 , 35 ]. Accurate subtyping by immunohistochemistry or mass spectrometry is therefore not merely diagnostically desirable but essential to the safe and effective management of this patient group. Mass spectrometry remains the gold standard for amyloid subtyping but is not universally available in routine clinical practice, and many patients are consequently diagnosed using immunohistochemistry alone, which can occasionally be inconclusive [ 35 , 38 ].

Emerging technologies and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnosis

Technological advances have played a key role in improving the recognition, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal symptoms. For example, electronic chromoendoscopy techniques, including narrow-band imaging (NBI; Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), blue laser imaging (BLI; Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and linked colour imaging (LCI; Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), help to enhance mucosal and vascular contrast to highlight subtle abnormalities in microvasculature and surface architecture. These modalities reveal microvascular distortions, irregular capillary networks and uneven mucosal patterns that are often not visualised with conventional white light endoscopy, aiding detection of occult flat lesions and enabling precise targeting of biopsy sites [ 42 - 44 ]. NBI in particular improves visualisation of the fine granular appearance and polypoid protrusions characteristic of gastrointestinal amyloidosis, whilst LCI enhances colour contrast to demarcate affected mucosa more clearly [ 31 , 34 ]. In a recent case report, NBI demonstrated a distinctive greyish-green layered signal in amyloid-related gastric erythema that was absent in other causes of mucosal redness, suggesting a potential supportive role in differential diagnosis [ 44 ].

Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) provides real-time, cellular-level imaging of the gastrointestinal mucosa, enabling "optical biopsy" without tissue acquisition. In amyloidosis, CLE can visualise characteristic "ground-glass" or "cotton-wool-like" hyper-reflective areas corresponding to amyloid deposition within the mucosal and submucosal layers [ 45 , 46 ]. By directly guiding targeted sampling, CLE may reduce sampling error and improve diagnostic yield, particularly where endoscopic findings are subtle or non-specific [ 45 , 46 ].

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) offers complementary advantages by showing wall thickening and characteristic echogenic abnormalities across the layers of the gastrointestinal wall. EUS is uniquely suited to detecting deep or submucosal deposits that are inaccessible to superficial forceps biopsies, and EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB enables acquisition of deeper tissue or tissue samples from adjacent organs such as the pancreas and liver, overcoming the limitations of conventional endoscopic biopsy [ 39 , 40 ]. This is particularly valuable where amyloid encases blood vessels outside the bowel wall or where submucosal lesions are suspected but mucosal biopsies remain negative [ 39 ]. In one reported case of localised gastric amyloidosis presenting as a submucosal lesion, EUS-FNA successfully provided diagnostic material after standard forceps biopsies had failed [ 39 ].

Looking ahead, artificial intelligence (AI)-based endoscopic image recognition systems are expected to play an increasingly important role, particularly for the recognition and diagnosis of this disease. By automatically identifying regions of suspected amyloid deposition on the basis of subtle textural and vascular features, AI could further enhance biopsy efficiency, reduce inter-observer variability and improve diagnostic accuracy [ 43 ]. Early studies in other gastrointestinal conditions have demonstrated the potential of AI to match and even surpass expert endoscopists in lesion detection, with similar applications for amyloidosis being anticipated [ 43 , 46 ]. Whilst these innovations are opening new avenues for early diagnosis, a shift in clinical mindset remains equally critical. Maintaining a high index of suspicion for this rare disease in everyday practice and avoiding the cognitive bias of attributing non-specific symptoms to more common conditions are essential for reducing diagnostic delay and improving outcomes [ 41 ].

Multidisciplinary collaboration and integration of diagnostic pathways

Amyloidosis is a systemic disease, and its diagnosis and effective management typically require the input from multiple specialties. Gastroenterologists and endoscopists play a central role in identifying suspicious endoscopic findings, obtaining standardised biopsies and communicating critical clinical information to pathologists and other specialists [ 41 ]. A high index of suspicion should be maintained in patients presenting with unexplained diffuse gastrointestinal wall thickening, markedly reduced peristalsis or evidence of multiorgan involvement on cross-sectional imaging. In such cases, prompt pathological biopsy is essential to confirm or exclude the diagnosis [ 20 , 22 ]. Where amyloidosis involves other organs, such as the kidneys or heart, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may simultaneously reveal additional signs of systemic disease, including bowel wall thickening and dilation of involved segments, and renal calcification, providing further diagnostic clues (Figure 9 ). Awareness of gastrointestinal amyloidosis amongst endoscopists and pathologists remains suboptimal in many settings, contributing to diagnostic delays that can exceed six months [ 32 , 41 ].

Endoscopy and targeted biopsy currently represent the cornerstone of early diagnosis and precise subtyping. Clinicians must therefore be thoroughly familiar with the patterns of gastrointestinal deposition and the endoscopic characteristics associated with different subtypes. For patients with suspected amyloidosis, initial gastroduodenoscopy with biopsy is recommended, with concurrent Congo red staining and, where available, mass spectrometry-based typing. If initial results are negative but clinical suspicion remains high, additional procedures such as EUS-guided deep biopsy or rectal biopsy should be considered, establishing a stepwise diagnostic workflow that progresses from non-invasive to minimally invasive techniques [ 47 ].

The success of this approach depends on close collaboration between endoscopists and pathologists. Endoscopists must communicate the clinical suspicion of amyloidosis explicitly on the biopsy request form, prompting the pathologist to perform Congo red staining and, where necessary, immunohistochemical or mass spectrometry-based subtyping [ 35 ]. Amyloid deposits can be subtle and easily overlooked on routine haematoxylin and eosin sections, particularly when confined to the muscularis mucosae or small submucosal vessels, so pathologists should maintain a low threshold for Congo red staining in patients with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms, especially in the presence of a monoclonal gammopathy, chronic inflammatory disease or suggestive imaging findings [ 24 , 34 ]. Conversely, when amyloid is identified, pathologists should not stop at a generic diagnosis but proceed directly to subtyping the specimen using immunohistochemistry or, in equivocal cases, refer the specimen for mass spectrometry analysis [ 37 , 38 ].

The recommended standardised diagnostic pathway can be summarised as follows: clinical suspicion → endoscopic assessment → imaging-based localisation → multisite deep biopsy → definitive diagnosis by Congo red staining and polarised light microscopy → subtyping by immunohistochemistry or mass spectrometry → haematological verification → multidisciplinary team (MDT) consultation for treatment planning (Figure 10 ) [ 9 , 41 , 47 ].

Key recommendations for clinical practice

Key recommendations for clinical practice include the following: in all patients presenting with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms, in the context of an isolated monoclonal gammopathy, chronic inflammatory disease or suggestive imaging findings, a high index of suspicion for amyloidosis should be maintained. Given this suspicion, multisite, deep-tissue biopsies should be performed (ideally and where clinical circumstances permit), obtaining a minimum of three samples from the descending duodenum, gastric antrum and gastric body. Crucially for the clinicians, a clinical suspicion of amyloidosis should be stated explicitly on the biopsy request form to ensure that Congo red staining is carried out. Should amyloid be identified, subtyping should then proceed using immunohistochemistry. Where results are equivocal, the specimen should be referred for mass spectrometry analysis. Equally important, endoscopic appearance alone should not be relied upon, as biopsy should be performed even if the mucosa appears normal. In cases of ATTR amyloidosis, a submucosal rectal biopsy should be considered as it has a higher yield compared with duodenal biopsies. Ultimately, the management of these patients necessitates a multidisciplinary approach between gastroenterologists, surgeons, pathologists, haematologists, cardiologists and radiologists.

Conclusions

In conclusion, due to the considerable advancements in gastrointestinal endoscopy techniques, it has helped to give rise to a comprehensive platform that now supports screening, lesion characterisation, subtype classification and assessment of treatment response for patients with amyloidosis. The diagnostic framework for gastrointestinal amyloidosis follows four main principles: timely recognition of characteristic endoscopic signs, standardised multisite deep-tissue biopsy protocols, systematic subtyping and a multidisciplinary approach for condition management. Despite these advances, significant challenges remain. Limited universal access to mass spectrometry-based subtyping and variable awareness amongst endoscopists and pathologists both continue to contribute to diagnostic delay. Looking forward, artificial intelligence-based image recognition will help to identify autonomously endoscopic features suggestive of amyloidosis, whilst the development of non-invasive biomarkers would represent a major advancement in reducing the need for repeated biopsies. Until then, maintaining a high index of suspicion, performing standardised deep biopsies and ensuring accurate subtyping remain the cornerstones of diagnosis. For this progress to continue, sustained effort will be required in education, research, technological adoption and multidisciplinary collaboration.

We are grateful to consultant histopathologist Dr. Fuju Chang (Gastrointestinal Cancer Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom) for his pathological advice and consultant radiologist Dr. Liisa Chang (Department of Radiology, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom) for her radiological advice.

Disclosures

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Author Contributions

Concept and design: Kai Tuomas Chang

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Kai Tuomas Chang, Hanna Mari Chang, Aina Ilona Chang, Minna Chang

Drafting of the manuscript: Kai Tuomas Chang

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Kai Tuomas Chang, Hanna Mari Chang, Aina Ilona Chang, Minna Chang

Supervision: Kai Tuomas Chang

References

1 Molecular mechanisms of amyloidosis N Engl J Med Merlini G Bellotti V 583 596 349 2003 10.1056/NEJMra023144 12904524

2 Amyloid fibril proteins and amyloidosis: chemical identification and clinical classification International Society of Amyloidosis 2016 Nomenclature Guidelines Amyloid Sipe JD Benson MD Buxbaum JN Ikeda SI Merlini G Saraiva MJ Westermark P 209 213 23 2016 10.1080/13506129.2016.1257986 27884064

3 Small bowel amyloidosis Curr Gastroenterol Rep Bansal R Syed U Walfish J Aron J Walfish A 11 20 2018 10.1007/s11894-018-0616-y 29582184

4 Isolated amyloidosis of the gastro-intestinal tract Acta Gastroenterol Belg Smeets S Dedeurwaerdere F Thomaere E 80 84 85 2022 10.51821/85.1.8499 35304997

5 Amyloidosis for the gastroenterologist : a comprehensive systematic review of diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal manifestations J Gastroenterol Hepatol Tang MJ Tay TY Gibbs S Niewiadomski O 2842 2856 40 2025 10.1111/jgh.70083 PMC12666616 41058263

6 Gastrointestinal manifestations of amyloidosis Am J Gastroenterol Ebert EC Nagar M 776 787 103 2008 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01669.x 18076735

7 Gastrointestinal amyloidosis: an often unexpected finding with systemic implications Hum Pathol Hagen CE Dasari S Theis JD 27 36 139 2023 10.1016/j.humpath.2023.06.007 37390975

8 Amyloidosis of the gastrointestinal tract: a 13-year, single-center, referral experience Haematologica Cowan AJ Skinner M Seldin DC 141 146 98 2013 10.3324/haematol.2012.068155 PMC3533676 22733017

9 Current approaches to the diagnosis and management of amyloidosis Intern Med J Taylor MS Sidiqi H Hare J 2046 2067 52 2022 10.1111/imj.15974 36478370

10 Gastrointestinal amyloidosis: a focused review World J Gastrointest Endosc Dahiya DS Kichloo A Singh J Albosta M Wani F 1 12 13 2021 10.4253/wjge.v13.i1.1 PMC7809597 33520102

11 Symptomatic gastric amyloidosis in patients with primary systemic amyloidosis Mayo Clin Proc Menke DM Kyle RA Fleming CR Wolfe JT 3rd Kurtin PJ Oldenburg WA 763 767 68 1993 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)60634-x 8331978

12 Systemic amyloidosis and the gastrointestinal tract Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Sattianayagam PT Hawkins PN Gillmore JD 608 617 6 2009 10.1038/nrgastro.2009.147 19724253

13 Intestinal amyloidosis: clinical manifestations and diagnostic challenge Adv Clin Exp Med Talar-Wojnarowska R Jamroziak K 563 570 30 2021 10.17219/acem/133521 33974753

14 Clinical recognition of Al type amyloidosis of the luminal gastrointestinal tract Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol James DG Zuckerman GR Sayuk GS Wang HL Prakash C 582 588 5 2007 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.02.038 17428737

15 Systemic amyloidosis with gastrointestinal involvement: diagnosis from endoscopic and histological views J Gastroenterol Hepatol Iida T Yamano H Nakase H 583 590 33 2018 10.1111/jgh.13996 28940821

16 A systematic review of the literature on localized gastrointestinal tract amyloidosis: presentation, management and outcomes Eur J Haematol Malone MA Castillo DA Santos HT Kaur A Elrafei T Steinberg L Kumar A 400 415 113 2024 10.1111/ejh.14269 39030954

17 Endoscopic and biopsy findings of the upper digestive tract in patients with amyloidosis Gastrointest Endosc Tada S Iida M Iwashita A 10 14 36 1990 10.1016/s0016-5107(90)70913-3 2311879

18 Endoscopic and pathological characteristics of gastrointestinal amyloidosis: a retrospective analysis BMC Gastroenterol Niu Z Lang Y Shen Y Zhang H Xue Y Ding S 81 25 2025 10.1186/s12876-025-03670-z PMC11830184 39955503

19 Systemic amyloidosis and the gastrointestinal tract Gastroenterol Clin North Am Friedman S Janowitz HD 595 614 27 1998 10.1016/s0889-8553(05)70022-4 9891699

20 Abdominal amyloidosis: spectrum of radiological findings Clin Radiol Kim SH Han JK Lee KH 610 620 58 2003 10.1016/s0009-9260(03)00142-9 12887954

21 Amyloid in biopsies of the gastrointestinal tract-a retrospective observational study on 542 patients Virchows Arch Freudenthaler S Hegenbart U Schönland S Behrens HM Krüger S Röcken C 569 577 468 2016 10.1007/s00428-016-1916-y PMC4856726 26915034

22 Review article: gastrointestinal amyloidosis - clinical features, diagnosis and therapy Aliment Pharmacol Ther Petre S Shah IA Gilani N 1006 1016 27 2008 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03682.x 18363891

23 Gastric amyloidosis: clinicopathological correlations in 79 cases from a single institution Hum Pathol Said SM Grogg KL Smyrk TC 491 498 46 2015 10.1016/j.humpath.2014.12.009 25649008

24 Amyloidosis-where are we now and where are we heading? Arch Pathol Lab Med Picken MM 545 551 134 2010 10.5858/134.4.545 20367306

25 Endoscopic and histopathological features of gastrointestinal amyloidosis World J Gastrointest Endosc Hokama A Kishimoto K Nakamoto M 157 161 3 2011 10.4253/wjge.v3.i8.157 PMC3180620 21954412

26 Comparative histopathological characteristics of duodenal involvement in different types of amyloidosis Biomedicines Tebenkova A Gioeva Z Shakhpazyan N Pechnikova V Midiber K Kalmykov V Mikhaleva L 13 2025 10.3390/biomedicines13092196 PMC12467754 41007759

27 Endoscopic and pathological manifestations of the gastrointestinal tract in familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy type I (Met30) J Intern Med Yoshimatsu S Ando Y Terazaki H 65 72 243 1998 10.1046/j.1365-2796.1998.00247.x 9487333

28 Duodenal biopsy for diagnosis of renal involvement in amyloidosis Clin Nephrol Yilmaz M Unsal A Sokmen M Harmankaya O Alkim C Kabukcuoglu F Ozagari A 114 118 77 2012 10.5414/CN107139 22257541

29 Endoscopic features of gastrointestinal amyloidosis: a proposed endoscopic classification Gut Liver Song JH Jung HM Kim JW 592 601 19 2025 10.5009/gnl240383 PMC12261126 40169391

30 Digestive amyloidosis trends: clinical, pathological, and imaging characteristics Biomedicines Bucurica S Nancoff AS Moraru MV 12 2024 10.3390/biomedicines12112630 PMC11591665 39595194

31 Clinical, endoscopic, and histopathologic observations in gastrointestinal amyloidosis J Gastrointestin Liver Dis Krauß LU Schmid S Mester P Utpatel K Kunst C Müller M Pavel V 497 506 32 2023 10.15403/jgld-5107 38147621

32 Clinical implications of gastrointestinal symptoms in systemic amyloidosis Neurogastroenterol Motil Yen T Chen FW Witteles RM Liedtke M Nguyen LA 0 30 2018 10.1111/nmo.13229 29024324

33 Characterization of amyloidosis in the gastrointestinal tract with an emphasis on histologically distinct interstitial patterns of deposition and misinterpretations Am J Surg Pathol Harris JC Zhang Q Tondon R Alipour Z Stashek K 302 308 48 2024 10.1097/PAS.0000000000002173 38145407

34 Amyloidosis: what does pathology offer? The evolving field of tissue biopsy Front Cardiovasc Med Riefolo M Conti M Longhi S Fabbrizio B Leone O 1081098 9 2022 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1081098 PMC9760761 36545023

35 Belgian recommendations for tissue diagnosis of amyloidosis Acta Clin Belg Dendooven A Vandendriessche A Koshy PJ 427 440 81 2026 10.1080/17843286.2026.2660739 42043894

36 Immunohistochemistry in the classification of systemic forms of amyloidosis: a systematic investigation of 117 patients Blood Schönland SO Hegenbart U Bochtler T 488 493 119 2012 10.1182/blood-2011-06-358507 22106346

37 Classification of amyloidosis by laser microdissection and mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis in clinical biopsy specimens Blood Vrana JA Gamez JD Madden BJ Theis JD Bergen HR 3rd Dogan A 4957 4959 114 2009 10.1182/blood-2009-07-230722 19797517

38 Amyloid typing by mass spectrometry in clinical practice: a comprehensive review of 16,175 samples Mayo Clin Proc Dasari S Theis JD Vrana JA 1852 1864 95 2020 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.06.029 32861330

39 Localized gastric amyloidosis diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration Clin J Gastroenterol Hashimoto C Hikichi T Hashimoto M 1036 1041 14 2021 10.1007/s12328-021-01416-4 33886105

40 A first report of endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of pancreatic amyloid deposition in immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis (primary amyloidosis) JOP Krishna SG Bhutani MS Mosher CH Staerkel GA Weston BR 283 285 14 2013 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4068148/ 10.6092/1590-8577/1505 PMC4068148 23669481

41 A comprehensive multidisciplinary diagnostic algorithm for the early and efficient detection of amyloidosis Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Jimenez-Zepeda V Bril V Lemieux-Blanchard E Royal V McCurdy A Schwartz D Davis MK 194 202 23 2023 10.1016/j.clml.2022.12.013 36653205

42 Appearance of enhanced tissue features in narrow-band endoscopic imaging J Biomed Opt Gono K Obi T Yamaguchi M 568 577 9 2004 10.1117/1.1695563 15189095

43 Advanced imaging modalities in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact Cureus Ahmed AE Abudash AM Al Am Er AR 0 17 2025 10.7759/cureus.96155 PMC12680370 41356987

44 Case report: Image-enhanced endoscopic characteristics of gastric amyloidosis with narrow-band imaging comparison Front Med (Lausanne) Wang X Lian B Luo Q 1683757 13 2026 10.3389/fmed.2026.1683757 PMC12894309 41695178

45 Confocal laser endomicroscopy in gastro-intestinal endoscopy: technical aspects and clinical applications Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol Pilonis ND Januszewicz W di Pietro M 7 7 2022 10.21037/tgh.2020.04.02 PMC8826043 35243116

46 Tracheobronchial amyloidosis and confocal endomicroscopy Respiration Newton RC Kemp SV Yang GZ Darzi A Sheppard MN Shah PL 209 211 82 2011 10.1159/000324256 21430359

47 Evaluation and management strategies for GI involvement with amyloidosis Am J Med Fritz CD Blaney E 0 3 135 Suppl 1 2022 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.01.008 35077702