141. American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute technology assessment on image-enhanced endoscopy.
作者: Tonya Kaltenbach.;Yasushi Sano.;Shai Friedland.;Roy Soetikno.; .
来源: Gastroenterology. 2008年134卷1期327-40页
This document presents the official recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Technology Assessment on "Image-Enhanced Endoscopy." It was approved by the Clinical Practice and Economics Committee on August 3, 2007, and by the AGA Institute Governing Board September 27, 2007.
142. American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute medical position statement on obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.
作者: Gottumukkala S Raju.;Lauren Gerson.;Ananya Das.;Blair Lewis.; .
来源: Gastroenterology. 2007年133卷5期1694-6页
This document presents the official recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute on "Evaluation and Management of Occult and Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding." It was approved by the Clinical Practice and Economics Committee on March 12, 2007, and by the AGA Institute Governing Board on May 19, 2007. This medical position statement is based upon the interpretation and assimilation of scientifically valid research, derived from a comprehensive review of published literature.
143. Eosinophilic esophagitis in children and adults: a systematic review and consensus recommendations for diagnosis and treatment.
作者: Glenn T Furuta.;Chris A Liacouras.;Margaret H Collins.;Sandeep K Gupta.;Chris Justinich.;Phil E Putnam.;Peter Bonis.;Eric Hassall.;Alex Straumann.;Marc E Rothenberg.; .
来源: Gastroenterology. 2007年133卷4期1342-63页
During the last decade, clinical practice saw a rapid increase of patients with esophageal eosinophilia who were thought to have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) but who did not respond to medical and/or surgical GERD management. Subsequent studies demonstrated that these patients had a "new" disease termed eosinophilic esophagitis (EE). As recognition of EE grew, so did confusion surrounding diagnostic criteria and treatment. To address these issues, a multidisciplinary task force of 31 physicians assembled with the goal of determining diagnostic criteria and making recommendations for evaluation and treatment of children and adults with suspected EE. Consensus recommendations were based upon a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion. EE is a clinicopathological disease characterized by (1) Symptoms including but not restricted to food impaction and dysphagia in adults, and feeding intolerance and GERD symptoms in children; (2) > or = 15 eosinophils/HPF; (3) Exclusion of other disorders associated with similar clinical, histological, or endoscopic features, especially GERD. (Use of high dose proton pump inhibitor treatment or normal pH monitoring). Appropriate treatments include dietary approaches based upon eliminating exposure to food allergens, or topical corticosteroids. Since EE is a relatively new disease, the intent of this report is to provide current recommendations for care of affected patients and defining gaps in knowledge for future research studies.
147. AGA Institute medical position statement on the use of endoscopic therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease.
This document presents the official recommendations of the AGA Institute on "Endoscopic Therapy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease." It was approved by the Clinical Practice and Economics Committee on June 20, 2006, and by the AGA Institute Governing Board on July 24, 2006.
148. American Gastroenterological Association Institute technical review on the management of gastric subepithelial masses.
This literature review and the recommendations therein were prepared for the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice and Economics Committee. The paper was approved by the Committee on January 19, 2006, and by the AGA Institute Governing Board on April 20, 2006.
149. American Gastroenterological Association Institute medical position statement on the management of gastric subepithelial masses.
This document presents the official recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association Institute (AGA Institute) on "Management of Gastric Subepithelial Masses." It was approved by the Clinical Practice and Economics Committee on January 19, 2006, and by the AGA Institute Governing Board on April 20, 2006.
150. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.
作者: Sidney J Winawer.;Ann G Zauber.;Robert H Fletcher.;Jonathon S Stillman.;Michael J O'Brien.;Bernard Levin.;Robert A Smith.;David A Lieberman.;Randall W Burt.;Theodore R Levin.;John H Bond.;Durado Brooks.;Tim Byers.;Neil Hyman.;Lynne Kirk.;Alan Thorson.;Clifford Simmang.;David Johnson.;Douglas K Rex.; .; .
来源: Gastroenterology. 2006年130卷6期1872-85页
Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings discovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which showed clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance take place 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003 these guidelines were updated and colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, stratification at baseline into low risk and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have shown that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was designed to address all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be stratified more definitely at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower risk or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either 3 or more adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or an adenoma 1 cm or larger in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have 1 or 2 small (<1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up evaluation in 5-10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up evaluation, as for average-risk people. There have been recent studies that have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase the use of the recommendations by endoscopists. The adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.
151. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
作者: Douglas K Rex.;Charles J Kahi.;Bernard Levin.;Robert A Smith.;John H Bond.;Durado Brooks.;Randall W Burt.;Tim Byers.;Robert H Fletcher.;Neil Hyman.;David Johnson.;Lynne Kirk.;David A Lieberman.;Theodore R Levin.;Michael J O'Brien.;Clifford Simmang.;Alan G Thorson.;Sidney J Winawer.; .; .
来源: Gastroenterology. 2006年130卷6期1865-71页
Patients with resected colorectal cancer are at risk for recurrent cancer and metachronous neoplasms in the colon. This joint update of guidelines by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer addresses only the use of endoscopy in the surveillance of these patients. Patients with endoscopically resected Stage I colorectal cancer, surgically resected Stages II and III cancers, and Stage IV cancer resected for cure (isolated hepatic or pulmonary metastasis) are candidates for endoscopic surveillance. The colorectum should be carefully cleared of synchronous neoplasia in the perioperative period. In nonobstructed colons, colonoscopy should be performed preoperatively. In obstructed colons, double-contrast barium enema or computed tomography colonography should be performed preoperatively, and colonoscopy should be performed 3 to 6 months after surgery. These steps complete the process of clearing synchronous disease. After clearing for synchronous disease, another colonoscopy should be performed in 1 year to look for metachronous lesions. This recommendation is based on reports of a high incidence of apparently metachronous second cancers in the first 2 years after resection. If the examination at 1 year is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 3 years. If that examination is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 5 years. Shorter intervals may be indicated by associated adenoma findings (see "Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society"). Shorter intervals also are indicated if the patient's age, family history, or tumor testing indicate definite or probable hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Patients undergoing low anterior resection of rectal cancer generally have higher rates of local cancer recurrence compared with those with colon cancer. Although effectiveness is not proven, performance of endoscopic ultrasound or flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3- to 6-month intervals for the first 2 years after resection can be considered for the purpose of detecting a surgically curable recurrence of the original rectal cancer.
155. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: diagnosis and treatment of gastroparesis.
作者: Henry P Parkman.;William L Hasler.;Robert S Fisher.; .
来源: Gastroenterology. 2004年127卷5期1589-91页
This document presents the official recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) on Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastroparesis. It was approved by the Clinical Practice Committee on May 16, 2004, and by the AGA Governing Board on September 23, 2004.
157. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: Diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhoids.
This document presents the official recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) on Hemorrhoids. It was approved by the Clinical Practice Committee on January 8, 2004, and by the AGA Governing Board on February 13, 2004.
|