Welcome to NGC. Skip directly to: Search Box, Navigation, Content.


Brief Summary

GUIDELINE TITLE

Role of EUS.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Role of endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:852-9.

BRIEF SUMMARY CONTENT

 
RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

 Go to the Complete Summary

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Grades 1A-3). Definitions of the recommendation grades are presented at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Summary

Barrett's Esophagus (BE)

  • The role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in evaluating patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) is to exclude the presence of occult cancer, submucosal invasion, and malignant lymphadenopathy (1C).
  • The routine application of EUS in BE with low-grade dysplasia or without dysplasia is not recommended (3).

Esophageal Cancer

  • In esophageal cancer, EUS provides accurate locoregional staging that is superior to computerized tomography (CT) scanning (1C+).
  • Preoperative EUS staging of esophageal cancer is cost effective and can guide preoperative management (1C+).

Gastric Cancer and Lymphoma

  • EUS is useful in the locoregional staging of gastric carcinoma and lymphomas (1C+).
  • EUS may be used to monitor response to therapy with disease regression in gastric lymphoma (1C).

Rectal Cancer

  • EUS is accurate in the preoperative locoregional staging of rectal cancer (1C+).
  • Preoperative EUS staging of rectal cancer is cost effective and can guide preoperative management (1C+).

Submucosal Lesions

  • When a submucosal lesion is identified, EUS should be considered to further characterize the lesion (1C).
  • EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or core biopsy can help establish a tissue diagnosis and potentially characterize malignant risk (1C+).
  • EUS should be performed before consideration of endoscopic removal of SML (3).

Pancreatic Cancer

  • Pancreatic adenocarcinoma can be accurately identified, staged, and diagnosed by EUS and EUS-FNA (1C+).
  • Neuroendocrine tumors can be localized and sampled by EUS (3).

Chronic and Acute Pancreatitis

  • EUS is the most sensitive imaging study for the detection of structural changes of chronic pancreatitis (1C).
  • EUS has been shown to be useful for identifying the presence of bile duct stones in cases of acute gallstone pancreatitis and in selecting patients for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at intermediate risk for choledocholithiasis (1C).

Autoimmune Pancreatitis

  • EUS, EUS–FNA, and EUS core biopsy can help establish the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (3).

Pancreatic Cystic Lesions

  • EUS is useful for the characterization of the morphology of pancreatic cystic lesions (1C).
  • EUS can be used to guide drainage of benign inflammatory lesions (3).

Fecal Incontinence and Perianal Disease

  • Internal and external anal sphincter defects can be accurately identified by EUS in the evaluation of fecal incontinence (1C).
  • EUS may be used for the identification and characterization of abscesses and perianal fistulae (3).

Choledocolithiasis

  • EUS is highly accurate in the detection of choledocolithiasis and has fewer complications than ERCP (1C).

Mediastinal Lymphadenopathy

  • EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate method for obtaining a tissue diagnosis in patients with mediastinal adenopathy (1C+).

Lymph Nodes

  • Use of EUS and EUS-FNA to differentiate benign from malignant lymph nodes should be considered in patients when results would alter treatment (1C+).

Therapeutic EUS

  • EUS-guided celiac neurolysis can provide significant reduction of pancreatic cancer pain (1C).

Definitions:

Grades of Recommendation*

Grade of Recommendation Clarity of Benefit Methodologic Strength/
Supporting Evidence
Implications
1A Clear Randomized trials without important limitations Strong recommendation; can be applied to most clinical settings
1B Clear Randomized trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, nonfatal methodologic flaws) Strong recommendation; likely to apply to most practice settings
1C+ Clear Overwhelming evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation; can apply to most practice settings in most situations
1C Clear Observational studies Intermediate-strength recommendation; may change when stronger evidence is available
2A Unclear Randomized trials without important limitations Intermediate-strength recommendation; best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients' or societal values
2B Unclear Randomized trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, nonfatal methodologic flaws) Weak recommendation; alternative approaches may be better under some circumstances
2C Unclear Observational studies Very weak recommendation; alternative approaches likely to be better under some circumstances
3 Unclear Expert opinion only Weak recommendation; likely to change as data become available

*Adapted from Guyatt G, Sinclair J, Cook D, Jaeschke R, Schunemann H, Pauker S. Moving from evidence to action: grading recommendations—a qualitative approach. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, eds. Users' guides to the medical literature. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002. p. 599-608.

CLINICAL ALGORITHM(S)

None provided

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

ADAPTATION

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

DATE RELEASED

2000 (revised 2007 Sep)

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: S. Ian Gan, MD; Elizabeth Rajan, MD; Douglas G. Adler, MD; Todd H. Baron, MD, Chair; Michelle A. Anderson, MD; Brooks D. Cash, MD; Raquel E. Davila, MD; Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS; M. Edwyn Harrison III, MD; Steven O. Ikenberry, MD; David Lichtenstein, MD; Waqar Qureshi, MD; Bo Shen, MD; Mark Zuckerman, MD; Robert D. Fanelli, MD, SAGES Representative; Kenneth K. Lee, MD, NAPSGHAN Representative; Trina Van Guilder, RN, SGNA Representative

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Not stated

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Role of endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:852-9.

GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies: Available from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Web site.

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 March 3, 2008.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

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

DISCLAIMER

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 which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .

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.


 

 

   
DHHS Logo