Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025
Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for biliary strictures: a comparison of ACG, ESGE, and ASGE guidelines.
СтатьяОбзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gadour Eyad, Crinò Stefano Francesco, Spadaccini Marco, Facciorusso Antonio
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic management of biliary strictures remains a complex clinical challenge requiring evidence-based guidance. Multiple societies, including the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), have recently published guidelines with both consensus and divergence.
AREAS COVERED: A comparative analysis of the ESGE, ACG, and ASGE guidelines reveals shared principles, such as the role of MRI/MRCP in initial evaluation (moderate quality evidence), limited utility of tumor markers alone (low to very low quality evidence), and preference for metal stents in palliation (moderate quality evidence). Key differences arise in tissue acquisition for perihilar strictures, with ACG/ASGE discouraging EUS-guided sampling in surgical candidates (low-quality evidence), while ESGE conditionally supports its use in non-resectable cases candidates (low-quality evidence). The ASGE provides conditional recommendations on bilateral stenting for malignant hilar obstruction, not emphasized in other guidelines.
EXPERT OPINION: Although founded on similar evidence, guideline variations reflect differing risk tolerance and resource considerations. Clinicians must recognize these nuances to tailor management. Future research should clarify EUS seeding risk, evaluate cost-effectiveness, and inform harmonized guideline updates.
AREAS COVERED: A comparative analysis of the ESGE, ACG, and ASGE guidelines reveals shared principles, such as the role of MRI/MRCP in initial evaluation (moderate quality evidence), limited utility of tumor markers alone (low to very low quality evidence), and preference for metal stents in palliation (moderate quality evidence). Key differences arise in tissue acquisition for perihilar strictures, with ACG/ASGE discouraging EUS-guided sampling in surgical candidates (low-quality evidence), while ESGE conditionally supports its use in non-resectable cases candidates (low-quality evidence). The ASGE provides conditional recommendations on bilateral stenting for malignant hilar obstruction, not emphasized in other guidelines.
EXPERT OPINION: Although founded on similar evidence, guideline variations reflect differing risk tolerance and resource considerations. Clinicians must recognize these nuances to tailor management. Future research should clarify EUS seeding risk, evaluate cost-effectiveness, and inform harmonized guideline updates.