A SiftingSignal publication/ Edited by Simon Mathews, MD

The week in GI, filtered to what is worth knowing.

Every week, 300+ papers from 25+ top GI and medical journals, transparently scored and physician-vetted. The signal, not the noise.

This week, in numbers

Issue №5 · week of Aug 2, 2026See the trends →
Top journals this week: JAMA / Nat Rev Gastro Hep / J Hepatology / Gut
Selectivity
6.4%
22 in the issue of 342 screened
in the issue 22in depth 85held 21filtered out 214
93.6% of what published this week did not make the issue. That filter is the product. A further 85 cleared the bar and are carried in one line each, in full on the subspecialty pages.
How this week moves the standard
Changes practice 0
No paper this week forces an outright change to the standard. That is the usual, honest result.
Each paper is matched to the guideline that governs its question, then placed by how it moves it. These are the 22 cards in the issue; every one quotes the standard it was measured against, with its source and review date. Click a segment to filter the issue.
The signal map
EmergingReinforcesRefinesChangesstrong evidence · moves the standardnarrative reviewguideline →How far it moves the standardEvidence strength
Each dot is a paper: evidence strength across, how far it moves the standard up, area = the journal's impact factor, colour = subspecialty. The shaded zone is a fixed bar (prospective cohort or better, refining the standard or better), so a big dot outside it is work the field rated highly that is not changing practice. Click a dot to open its card.

What to know this week

the top-scored · the 5-minute version

AKR1B10 outperforms AFP for HCC diagnosis (AUC 0.866 vs 0.750), detects 69% of AFP-negative cases, prefer EUS-GE for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: fewer re-interventions, higher clinical success, shorter stays, and use VET to reduce transfusions in cirrhotic patients undergoing invasive procedures.

The 22 in the issue this week, ranked by signal score. Each anchored to the relevant standard of care. All in full below; 85 more, read and scored the same way, in one line each at the foot of the issue.

Your subspecialty, the takeaways
IBD19Hepatology36Esophagus/Reflux5Pancreas/Biliary11Endoscopy18Motility9Colorectal9
Type

This week to know

the 11 strongest this week · each scored 0 to 100 on what it lets you do, who it touches, the stakes, and how well the evidence backs it
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=1,352 · Aug 1, 2026 · Liver International · IF 6.7

Diagnostic Performance of Serum AKR1B10 in Early-Stage and AFP-Negative Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicentre Study.

Diagnostichepatocellular carcinomabiomarkerbasic science
Clinical takeawayAKR1B10 shows promise as a diagnostic biomarker for early and AFP-negative HCC, but further validation is needed before clinical adoption. Post-resection AKR1B10 decline and imaging concordance (94.41% vs AFP's 70.63%) warrant investigation in prospective studies.
What it foundSerum AKR1B10 had an AUC of 0.866 (sensitivity 73.10%, specificity 95.24%) for HCC diagnosis, outperforming AFP (AUC 0.750, sensitivity 64.27%, specificity 82.14%) in this cohort. In AFP-negative HCC, AKR1B10 was positive in 69.27% of cases (AUC 0.852, sensitivity 72.2%, specificity 90.48%). Performance in non-HCC liver diseases or non-hepatocyte cancers was not reported.
ContextCurrent HCC diagnosis relies on AFP and imaging, but AFP has limited sensitivity in early-stage or AFP-negative HCC. This study suggests AKR1B10 may complement AFP, though its role in non-HCC liver conditions remains unclear.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), 'AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma,' Hepatology, 2023 (78(6):1922-1965).

Decision at stakethe use of serum biomarkers for HCC diagnosis and surveillance

Surveillance is abdominal ultrasound PLUS serum AFP at ~6-month (semiannual) intervals, a change from prior AASLD guidance, which had left AFP optional (Strong recommendation). After potentially curative therapy, continue surveillance for recurrence given high recurrence risk (AASLD monitors with cross-sectional contrast-enhanced imaging, not ultrasound, in the early post-treatment period).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perform HCC surveillance in adults with cirrhosis of any etiology who are able to benefit from HCC treatment, accordingly, do not enroll patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh class C cirrhosis unless they are candidates for (or listed for) liver transplantation, and do not surveil those with life-limiting comorbidity (life expectancy <1-2 years) that transplantation cannot remedy, and in select non-cirrhotic chronic HBV carriers at elevated risk (e.g., active hepatitis/high viral load, family history of HCC, African/African-American ancestry, Asian men >40 and Asian women >50; AASLD references risk scores such as PAGE-B but stops short of mandating a specific numeric cutoff). Surveillance is abdominal ultrasound PLUS serum AFP at ~6-month (semiannual) intervals, a change from prior AASLD guidance, which had left AFP optional (Strong recommendation). Pursue diagnostic evaluation for an AFP ≥20 ng/mL or for a rising AFP, defined as a doubling of AFP or an increase on two consecutive tests even if the absolute value is <20 ng/mL. Any suspicious ultrasound observation ≥1 cm, or an inadequate/limited ultrasound, should be evaluated with multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI interpreted with CT/MRI LI-RADS. AASLD 2023 stages confirmed HCC using the BCLC framework and links stage to therapy (curative resection, ablation, or transplantation within Milan criteria for very-early/early disease; TACE and other locoregional therapy for intermediate disease; systemic therapy for advanced disease). Its first-line systemic options for advanced HCC with preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A) are atezolizumab+bevacizumab OR durvalumab+tremelimumab (STRIDE) as preferred, with sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab monotherapy as alternatives when the preferred combinations are contraindicated. After potentially curative therapy, continue surveillance for recurrence given high recurrence risk (AASLD monitors with cross-sectional contrast-enhanced imaging, not ultrasound, in the early post-treatment period).

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), 'AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma,' Hepatology, 2023 (78(6):1922-1965). · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Cao Z … Sun Z · Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,585 · Aug 3, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Clinical Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenterostomy, Enteral Stenting, and Surgical Gastrojejunostomy for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Network Meta-Analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider EUS-GE as a preferred intervention for malignant gastric outlet obstruction in expert centers, given its lower re-intervention rates, higher clinical success, and shorter hospitalization compared to enteral stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy, pending further studies in non-expert settings.
What it foundEUS-GE reduced re-intervention rates vs ES (RR 0.17) and SGJ (RR 0.3), increased clinical success vs ES (RR 1.20) and SGJ (RR 1.17), and shortened hospitalization by 6 days vs SGJ. Adverse events were reported but not detailed.
ContextThis network meta-analysis refines current practice by demonstrating EUS-GE's superiority over enteral stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy in multiple outcomes, but applicability is currently limited to expert centers.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Premalignant Conditions," 2025 (Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(4):709-737)

Decision at stakechoosing between EUS-GE, enteral stenting, and surgical gastrojejunostomy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction

For dysplasia: endoscopic resection is suggested when the lesion has visible margins; if dysplasia is not endoscopically visible, repeat endoscopy with HDWLE and image-enhanced endoscopy by an experienced endoscopist; patients appropriate for endoscopic resection, particularly ESD, should be referred to a high-volume center with expertise in diagnosis and therapeutic resection of gastric neoplasia (strong recommendation).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Evaluate with high-quality upper endoscopy: adequate mucosal cleansing and insufflation, high-definition white light endoscopy with image-enhanced endoscopy, and photodocumentation of anatomic landmarks. Take systematic biopsies per the updated Sydney protocol in at least two separate containers (antrum/incisura and corpus), with any targeted biopsies of mucosal abnormalities in additional separate containers; histology must report gastric intestinal metaplasia subtype (incomplete, complete, or mixed) and the severity and extent of atrophic gastritis and metaplasia, because subtype and extent are what drive risk stratification. ACG suggests surveillance endoscopy every 3 years for patients at high risk of progression, that is, patients whose GIM or atrophic gastritis carries at least one higher-risk feature: incomplete or mixed intestinal metaplasia subtype, extensive metaplasia/atrophy involving the corpus in addition to the antrum/incisura (advanced-stage disease, OLGA/OLGIM III/IV), a first-degree relative with gastric cancer, or membership in a high gastric-cancer-incidence population (high-risk race/ethnicity, or birth in or immigration from a high-incidence region), with the explicit qualifier that the interval may be individualized; patients with advanced-stage disease (OLGA/OLGIM III/IV) plus a first-degree relative with gastric cancer may warrant more intensive follow-up every 1-2 years. ACG suggests AGAINST endoscopic surveillance for low-risk GIM or atrophy (limited antral, complete-subtype metaplasia without additional risk factors), and recommends against routine endoscopic screening of the general US population; it found insufficient direct evidence from US populations to recommend screening on the basis of immigration status, race, or ethnicity alone. ACG strongly recommends testing for H. pylori by non-serologic methods with eradication if positive in all patients with gastric premalignant conditions and in patients with resected early gastric cancer, and recommends confirmation of eradication (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For dysplasia: endoscopic resection is suggested when the lesion has visible margins; if dysplasia is not endoscopically visible, repeat endoscopy with HDWLE and image-enhanced endoscopy by an experienced endoscopist; patients appropriate for endoscopic resection, particularly ESD, should be referred to a high-volume center with expertise in diagnosis and therapeutic resection of gastric neoplasia (strong recommendation). Individualized surveillance may be considered in autoimmune gastritis given increased neuroendocrine tumor and possible gastric cancer risk. Patients whose family history suggests a hereditary cancer syndrome should be referred for genetic counseling, with endoscopic screening individualized according to syndrome-specific guidelines and patient preference, ACG explicitly defers rather than specifying CDH1 or Lynch protocols itself.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Premalignant Conditions," 2025 (Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(4):709-737) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Peng YN … Chen YI · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology meta analysis · n=296 · Aug 1, 2026 · Liver International · IF 6.7

Viscoelastic Tests in Cirrhotic Patients Undergoing Invasive Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs.

Practice-changingcirrhosissystematic reviewmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider using viscoelastic testing (VET) to guide transfusion strategies in cirrhotic patients undergoing invasive procedures, as it reduces unnecessary transfusions compared to standard-of-care without increasing bleeding risk.
What it foundVET-guided transfusion strategies, compared to standard-of-care, reduced any blood product transfusion (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.44), platelet transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.32), and FFP exposure (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28-0.57) without increasing bleeding risk (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.24-2.31) in cirrhotic patients undergoing invasive procedures.
ContextChallenges the traditional reliance on conventional coagulation tests, which often lead to unnecessary transfusions in cirrhotic patients due to poor reflection of their rebalanced haemostatic state.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211.

Decision at stakeassessing bleeding risk in cirrhotic patients undergoing invasive procedures

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Scope: this primary document covers portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis ONLY. Everything else in the current entry (HCC surveillance, transplant referral, nutrition, vaccination, ascites/SBP/HE/HRS/ACLF management) belongs to the separate documents listed as supporting sources and must not be attributed to this guidance. Risk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with non-invasive tests before defaulting to endoscopy. By vibration-controlled transient elastography, liver stiffness (LSM) under 10 kPa excludes cACLD, 10 to 14.9 kPa is suggestive and warrants further testing, and 15 kPa or above rules cACLD in. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e. HVPG above 10 mm Hg) is ruled in non-invasively by LSM at or above 25 kPa alone, or LSM 20 to 24.9 kPa with platelets below 150 x 10^9/L, or LSM 15 to 19.9 kPa with platelets below 110 x 10^9/L. Where spleen stiffness measurement is available, values below 21 kPa argue against CSPH and above 50 kPa argue for it. These non-invasive cutoffs are conditional probability thresholds, not universal diagnostic rules, and hold only when their derivation conditions are met. They were established in compensated advanced chronic liver disease of viral (treated or untreated HBV/HCV), alcohol-related, or non-obese (BMI under 30) MASLD etiology, and are not validated for and should not be applied to cholestatic (e.g. PBC, PSC), vascular, or other etiologies, in which different cutoffs apply. They also require a technically reliable liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, fasting, at least 10 valid acquisitions, and an IQR/median ratio below 30 percent, and are confounded by factors that raise liver stiffness independently of fibrosis, including ALT flares or acute hepatitis, extrahepatic cholestasis, hepatic congestion (right heart failure), and recent food intake; Baveno VII recommends confirming an LSM-based rule-in on a repeat measurement obtained on a separate day. The spleen stiffness cutoffs apply only to a dedicated 100 Hz spleen module, carry a higher technical failure rate, are machine-dependent, and are not interchangeable with values obtained using the standard 50 Hz liver probe. Where these population or acquisition conditions are not met, the numeric thresholds do not reliably classify CSPH, and HVPG measurement or endoscopy is required rather than a non-invasive determination. Preserve the gray zone: LSM 15 to 25 kPa without a qualifying platelet count is explicitly indeterminate (roughly 40 to 60 percent of cACLD patients) and calls for HVPG and/or endoscopy rather than assumption in either direction. Once CSPH is established, offer a non-selective beta-blocker, carvedilol preferred at 12.5 mg/day, to lower portal pressure and prevent FIRST decompensation, on the strength of PREDESCI. This is a treat-the-pressure strategy rather than a treat-the-varices one: because a patient already on NSBB for CSPH would not have management changed by the finding, screening endoscopy becomes unnecessary for most such patients. Screening EGD is still indicated where elastography is unavailable, technically difficult, or gives discordant results, and for patients who do not meet non-invasive criteria. Standard beta-blocker contraindications (severe asthma, advanced heart block, bradyarrhythmias) continue to apply. For varices needing treatment managed endoscopically, band ligation is repeated every 2 to 4 weeks until obliteration, with surveillance endoscopy at 6 months and annually thereafter. Gastric/cardiofundal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate injection or EUS-guided coil embolization rather than banding, with hepatology involvement. In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13. Keep the document's own qualifier: there is no established universal MELD or CTP cutoff at which TIPS is mandatory, and the decision is case-by-case with hepatology consultation. Statin use in compensated cirrhosis is NOT a recommendation traceable to this document; the current entry's statin sentence needs its own source or removal. Verification note: the Hepatology full text is paywalled (402/403 on direct fetch). Document identity, title, year, volume, pages and authorship were confirmed via Crossref and PubMed metadata; the numeric thresholds above were corroborated from two independent peer-reviewed commentaries on this specific guidance and match the Baveno VII rule-of-five, but were not read verbatim from the primary PDF. A human should confirm the exact guidance-statement wording against the full text before this entry is treated as quotation-grade.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Boccatonda A … Simioni P · Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,950 · Aug 1, 2026 · Pancreas · IF 1.9

Intrapancreatic Fat Deposition and Risk of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysissystematic reviewbiomarkerERCP
Clinical takeawayconsider intrapancreatic fat deposition when assessing post-ERCP pancreatitis risk and severity
What it foundPatients with intrapancreatic fat deposition (IPFD) had 3.07x higher odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and 5.01x higher odds of severe PEP compared to those without IPFD (OR: 3.07; 95% CI: 2.00-4.73; P <0.001; I2 =4% for PEP; OR: 5.01; 95% CI: 1.47-17.04; P =0.010; I2 =0% for severe PEP).
ContextThis meta-analysis confirms and quantifies IPFD as an independent risk factor for PEP, refining prior evidence on preprocedural risk stratification. The findings highlight the need for further validation and consideration of targeted prophylactic strategies.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at stakereduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk

Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Cerbino B … Melo HSDS · Pancreas · IF 1.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=16,973 · Aug 1, 2026 · Liver International · IF 6.7

Impact of Antiviral Therapy Scale-Up Among People Who Inject Drugs in Scotland: Regional Evidence of Hepatitis C Virus Elimination.

New evidenceviral hepatitisepidemiologyhealth services
Clinical takeawayPrioritize community-wide scale-up of DAA treatment and population-level monitoring surveys in people who inject drugs (PWID) to reduce HCV prevalence and support elimination goals, with particular attention to regional variability in outcomes.
What it foundBetween 2015-16 and 2022-23, DAA uptake increased 2.7-, 5.6-, and 4.5-fold to 95%, 78%, and 76% in Tayside, GGC, and RoS, respectively, with viraemia prevalence declining to 4%, 16%, and 15% (86%, 65%, and 53% decline from pre-2015 baseline).
ContextConfirms the effectiveness of DAA treatment-as-prevention (TasP) strategies in reducing HCV prevalence among PWID in Scotland, aligning with WHO elimination targets, with notable regional differences in success (Tayside achieved the greatest reduction).
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and Infectious Diseases Society of America (AASLD-IDSA), "Hepatitis C Guidance 2023 Update: AASLD-IDSA Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis C Virus Infection" (Patients With Decompensated Cirrhosis section), 2023

Decision at staketreatment is recommended for all persons with acute or chronic HCV infection

Diagnose active infection with HCV antibody testing with reflex HCV RNA PCR (Rating I, A); one-time opt-out anti-HCV testing is recommended for all adults ≥18 years and with each pregnancy (I, B), with annual testing for people who inject drugs, men with HIV who have unprotected sex with men, and MSM on PrEP (IIa, C). Treatment is recommended for all persons with acute or chronic HCV infection EXCEPT those with a short life expectancy that cannot be remediated by HCV therapy, liver transplantation, or another directed therapy.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnose active infection with HCV antibody testing with reflex HCV RNA PCR (Rating I, A); one-time opt-out anti-HCV testing is recommended for all adults ≥18 years and with each pregnancy (I, B), with annual testing for people who inject drugs, men with HIV who have unprotected sex with men, and MSM on PrEP (IIa, C). Treatment is recommended for all persons with acute or chronic HCV infection EXCEPT those with a short life expectancy that cannot be remediated by HCV therapy, liver transplantation, or another directed therapy. Stage fibrosis noninvasively (FIB-4; biopsy not required). The simplified treatment algorithm applies only to treatment-naive adults and EXCLUDES prior HCV treatment, HBsAg positivity, current pregnancy, known or suspected HCC, prior liver transplantation, and any current or prior episode of decompensated cirrhosis; excluded patients are managed by the genotype/population-specific sections, not the simplified pathway. Treatment-naive WITHOUT cirrhosis (FIB-4 ≤3.25 and no other evidence of cirrhosis): glecaprevir 300 mg/pibrentasvir 120 mg once daily with food × 8 weeks, OR sofosbuvir 400 mg/velpatasvir 100 mg once daily × 12 weeks, both pangenotypic and equally recommended; pretreatment CBC, hepatic function panel, eGFR, quantitative HCV RNA, HIV, HBsAg, pregnancy test within 6 months, plus medication reconciliation for drug-drug interactions. Treatment-naive WITH compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A): glecaprevir/pibrentasvir × 8 weeks for genotypes 1-6, OR sofosbuvir/velpatasvir × 12 weeks for genotypes 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 only, in genotype 3 with compensated cirrhosis, baseline NS5A resistance testing is required before sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and the presence of Y93H changes the regimen; pretreatment labs within 3 months plus CTP score and liver ultrasound within 6 months. On treatment, no routine laboratory monitoring is required except counseling diabetic patients about hypoglycemia and monitoring INR in patients on warfarin. Decompensated cirrhosis (CTP class B or C, or any prior decompensation): refer to a practitioner with expertise, ideally at a liver transplant center; ALL protease-inhibitor-containing regimens (glecaprevir, grazoprevir, voxilaprevir) are contraindicated. Ribavirin-eligible, treatment-naive: sofosbuvir/velpatasvir + weight-based ribavirin × 12 weeks (all genotypes), or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir + ribavirin × 12 weeks for genotypes 1, 4, 5, 6; ribavirin-ineligible: sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for GT 1, 4, 5, 6) × 24 weeks without ribavirin; prior sofosbuvir-based or NS5A inhibitor-based treatment failure: sofosbuvir/velpatasvir + weight-based ribavirin × 24 weeks. In CTP class C, start ribavirin at 600 mg/day and increase as tolerated toward weight-based dosing. Cure is defined by quantitative HCV RNA undetectable ≥12 weeks after completing therapy (SVR12), checked with a hepatic function panel; patients without cirrhosis who achieve SVR need no further liver-related follow-up, while patients with cirrhosis continue HCC ultrasound surveillance every 6 months and variceal screening per AASLD guidelines after SVR. Repeat annual HCV RNA testing in anyone with ongoing exposure risk.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and Infectious Diseases Society of America (AASLD-IDSA), "Hepatitis C Guidance 2023 Update: AASLD-IDSA Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis C Virus Infection" (Patients With Decompensated Cirrhosis section), 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Palmateer NE … Hutchinson SJ · Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Jul 29, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Improving follow-up of abnormal stool test results used for colorectal cancer screening.

Guideline / reviewcolorectal cancer screeninghealth servicescolonoscopyguideline
Clinical takeawayImplement coordinated strategies such as patient navigation, digital tools, and open access colonoscopy to improve follow-up colonoscopy rates after abnormal stool tests.
What it foundFollow-up colonoscopy rates after abnormal stool tests remain suboptimal, with actionable strategies identified to improve adherence.
ContextConfirms the known gap in follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal stool tests and provides evidence-based interventions to address it, aligning with current guidelines emphasizing timely follow-up.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018

Decision at stakeensuring timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive stool tests

For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant). The specific USMSTF criterion for stopping in previously well-screened patients is: individuals up to date with screening who have negative prior screening (particularly high-quality colonoscopy) should consider stopping at age 75 OR when life expectancy is less than 10 years, not 5 years.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant). For ages 76-85, the decision to start or continue is individualized, based on shared decision-making that weighs prior screening history, comorbidity, life expectancy, CRC risk, and patient preference (USPSTF Grade C). Screening is not recommended/offered at age 86 or older. The specific USMSTF criterion for stopping in previously well-screened patients is: individuals up to date with screening who have negative prior screening (particularly high-quality colonoscopy) should consider stopping at age 75 OR when life expectancy is less than 10 years, not 5 years. Individuals without adequate prior screening may be considered for screening up to age 85 depending on age and comorbidities. New alarm symptoms (iron deficiency anemia, GI bleeding, change in bowel habits, weight loss) always warrant workup regardless of age or screening status; this remains sound general practice though it is not a specific guideline citation.

USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Levin TR … Williams KN · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal meta analysis · Jul 30, 2026 · J Gastroenterology · IF 5.7

Clinical applications of gut microbiome for non-invasive diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.

Diagnosticmicrobiomebiomarkercolorectal cancercolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayMicrobiome-based stool testing shows promise for improving adenoma detection in CRC screening, particularly for early-stage lesions missed by FIT alone. However, further validation and integration into screening programs are needed before clinical adoption.
What it foundA microbial panel (Fusobacterium nucleatum, Hungatella hathewayi, Christensenella hongkongensis, and m3 gene) demonstrated improved sensitivity for adenoma detection compared to FIT alone, with comparable accuracy for CRC.
ContextCurrent stool-based tests like FIT have limited sensitivity for adenoma detection. This study confirms microbial signatures as viable biomarkers and highlights their potential to enhance early CRC screening.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017

Decision at stakethe potential use of gut microbiome biomarkers for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening

Begin average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 using a patient-centered shared-decision modality choice, colonoscopy every 10 years (preferred) or annual FIT as Tier 1 options, with multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years as Tier 2 alternatives. A positive stool-based test requires diagnostic colonoscopy, and stool tests should not be ordered for patients who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Generally stop at age 75 with individualized decisions for ages 76-85 and no screening beyond 85.

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Cui C … Chan FKL · Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 5.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology review · Aug 1, 2026 · Liver International · IF 6.7

From Diagnosis to Durability: A Review of the European Bulevirtide Experience and Practical Learnings for CHD Management.

New therapyviral hepatitisguidelinehealth servicesepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider bulevirtide 2 mg as a treatment option for chronic hepatitis D (CHD), especially in patients with compensated cirrhosis, and provide ongoing patient support for long-term adherence. Monitor for potential adverse events as long-term safety data continues to accumulate.
What it foundReal-world evidence shows bulevirtide monotherapy is safe and effective long-term compared to off-label pegylated interferon alpha, with high adherence, even in compensated cirrhosis, and may improve liver fibrosis and reduce liver-related events.
ContextBulevirtide is the first approved treatment for CHD in Europe, replacing off-label pegylated interferon alpha, with real-world evidence supporting its use and benefits primarily in patients with compensated cirrhosis.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases / Infectious Diseases Society of America (AASLD/IDSA), "AASLD/IDSA Practice Guideline on Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B," Hepatology, 2026

Decision at stakethe management of chronic hepatitis D (CHD) with bulevirtide

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

The 2026 AASLD/IDSA guideline addresses six PICO questions only; it states explicitly that all other 2018 AASLD recommendations for CHB management remain applicable, and that screening/diagnosis were out of scope. Baseline evaluation and the standard treatment indications (cirrhosis with detectable HBV DNA; HBeAg-positive immune-active with ALT >2x ULN and HBV DNA >20,000 IU/mL; HBeAg-negative immune-active with ALT >2x ULN and HBV DNA >2,000 IU/mL; prophylaxis for reactivation risk during immunosuppression) derive from the 2018 document, not this update, which lists 'treatment of HBeAg-positive and -negative immune active CHB with ALT >2x ULN', treatment of children, treatment of cirrhosis, low-level viremia, virologic breakthrough, and special populations (transplant, acute HBV, HCV/HDV/HIV coinfection) as topics 'well covered in previous AASLD 2018 Guidance and for which recommendations have not changed'. Preferred agents remain entecavir, TDF, or TAF. THE SIX 2026 RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) PMTCT, for pregnant persons with HBV DNA >200,000 IU/mL at any time point during pregnancy, regardless of HBeAg status, AASLD RECOMMENDS initiating TDF or TAF at gestational week 28 (STRONG recommendation, MODERATE certainty, the only strong recommendation in the guideline); TDF has a more extensive safety record in pregnancy than TAF. Implementation qualifiers: initiate immediately if care is first sought after week 28; initiate at week 16 if infant HBIG will be unavailable (with subsequent infant vaccination); consider earlier initiation when amniocentesis is anticipated (transmission risk is increased with HBV DNA >2,000,000 IU/mL) or when preterm labor risk is high; continue TDF/TAF if already on it, switch entecavir or other agents to TDF/TAF; if treatment was solely for perinatal prophylaxis it may be discontinued at delivery, with HBV DNA and ALT monitored every 1-3 months for up to 6 months for withdrawal flare and treatment reinitiated if ALT >=5x ULN; use TDF or TAF in breastfeeding persons requiring treatment. (2) HORIZONTAL TRANSMISSION, for HBsAg-positive viremic persons not meeting disease-specific treatment indications who are in high-risk scenarios for transmission to others, AASLD SUGGESTS a shared decision-making approach regarding antiviral treatment (CONDITIONAL, VERY LOW certainty). Qualifiers the guideline stresses: the decision weighs exposure risk and the vaccine/immunity status of contacts, favoring treatment if contacts are unvaccinated, vaccine-nonresponsive, immunocompromised, or of unknown vaccine status; persons requesting treatment for prevention may be prescribed it since risks may not be disclosed; explicitly, people with CHB must NOT be restricted in daily activities, contact sports, school, or professional training and must NOT be required to take antivirals because of transmission risk in those settings; routine contact, shared meals, and hugging are not transmission routes (avoid sharing toothbrushes/razors); most healthcare workers with CHB are NOT high-risk, but those performing SHEA Category III exposure-prone procedures may require antivirals (SHEA target HBV DNA <1000 IU/mL); neither CDC nor SHEA requires disclosure to patients or staff; anti-stigma framing is part of the recommendation. (3) IMMUNE-TOLERANT PHASE, defined as HBeAg-positive, HBV DNA >10^7 IU/mL, and normal ALT; AASLD SUGGESTS antiviral therapy for those over age 40 years, OR with significant liver inflammation (grade >=2) or fibrosis (>=F2) on biopsy or noninvasive tests (CONDITIONAL, VERY LOW certainty). For persons under age 40 who are interested in starting treatment earlier, AASLD suggests shared decision-making weighing risk factors and the benefits and risks of treatment. Accurate phase identification requires persistently normal ALT on >=2 measurements >=6 months apart, using ULN 35 U/L (males) and 25 U/L (females). (4) INDETERMINATE ('grey zone') PHASE, the HBeAg-negative indeterminate phase is defined as HBsAg-positive, HBeAg-negative persons whose ALT and/or HBV DNA fall outside the thresholds for HBeAg-negative immune-active CHB (ALT >2x ULN and HBV DNA >2,000 IU/mL) and outside those for inactive CHB (HBV DNA <2,000 IU/mL with normal ALT), comprising predominantly two subgroups, (I) normal (<ULN) or mildly elevated (<2x ULN) ALT with HBV DNA >=2,000 IU/mL, or (II) elevated ALT (>ULN) with HBV DNA <2,000 IU/mL, with ALT interpreted against ULN 35 U/L (males) and 25 U/L (females) and phase assigned on >=2 ALT and HBV DNA measurements over a 6-12 month period; in adults who are HBsAg-positive, HBeAg-negative, without cirrhosis and in the indeterminate phase so defined, AASLD SUGGESTS antiviral therapy using a shared decision-making approach assessing risks and benefits, and re-evaluating that decision at each follow-up visit if treatment has not been initiated (CONDITIONAL, VERY LOW certainty). Decision-relevant factors include fibrosis stage, age, and sex, e.g. age >40, male sex, and low-normal platelets (<180 k/mm3) favor treatment. (5) DISCONTINUATION, in adults with CHB who are HBeAg-negative, without cirrhosis, with sustained undetectable HBV DNA on nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy, AASLD SUGGESTS NOT withdrawing NA therapy until HBsAg loss (CONDITIONAL, VERY LOW certainty). If a patient nonetheless has a strong desire to stop, shared decision-making applies and ALL of the following must be met: no history of advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation (variceal bleed, ascites, encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome), HCC, or extrahepatic HBV complications; if HBeAg-positive at treatment start, HBeAg seroconversion to anti-HBe-positive for >=1 year with undetectable HBV DNA >=2 years; if HBeAg-negative at start, undetectable HBV DNA >=2 years; no HIV or HDV coinfection; quantitative HBsAg <100 IU/mL; and willingness to adhere to frequent monitoring. After stopping, monitor ALT and HBV DNA every 1-3 months for 6 months, then every 3 months for 6-12 months, then every 3-6 months. Restart antivirals IMMEDIATELY if HBV DNA >=10,000 IU/mL (4 log IU/mL) at any time regardless of ALT, OR ALT >=5x ULN regardless of HBV DNA, OR total bilirubin >2.5 mg/dL. (6) HCC SURVEILLANCE (all CONDITIONAL, VERY LOW certainty; modality/interval per AASLD 2023 HCC Practice Guidance), Rec 6: after HBsAg loss, continue surveillance in those with cirrhosis, family history of HCC, men who lost HBsAg after age 40, and women who lost HBsAg after age 50. Rec 7: in HBV-HDV coinfection, surveil adults independent of cirrhosis status; in children, individualize because HCC risk in that population is unknown. Rec 8: in HBV-HIV coinfection, surveil men >=18 years and women >=40 years. Rec 9: in HBV-HCV coinfection, AASLD recommends treating HCV and suggests HCC surveillance per HBV mono-infection criteria. Where a person has more than one coinfection, the surveillance recommendation should follow the coinfection carrying the highest associated risk. The guideline notes that most of its recommendations rest on low or very low certainty evidence and that shared decision-making, not uniform policy, is the intended mode of application.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases / Infectious Diseases Society of America (AASLD/IDSA), "AASLD/IDSA Practice Guideline on Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B," Hepatology, 2026 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Radu M … Wedemeyer H · Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology retrospective · n=1,040 · Aug 1, 2026 · Liver International · IF 6.7

Laparoscopic or Open Liver Resection Versus Multibipolar Radiofrequency Ablation of HCC Within Milan Criteria on Cirrhosis.

New evidencehepatocellular carcinomacirrhosisportal hypertensionliver transplant
Clinical takeawayConsider minimally invasive modalities (LLR or mbpRFA) for early HCC within Milan criteria on cirrhosis. Prioritize LLR for better oncological outcomes, but mbpRFA is a reasonable alternative with less morbidity and optimal transplant-free survival. Note that LLR is associated with more severe adverse events compared to mbpRFA.
What it foundMultibipolar radiofrequency ablation (mbpRFA) had similar overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.65-1.69), transplant-free survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.56-1.47), and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69-1.43) compared to open liver resection (OLR), but OLR had more severe adverse events (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.16-5.71) and mortality (RR 4.51, 95% CI 1.16-17.59). Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) had better overall survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.88) and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.53-0.91) than mbpRFA, but similar transplant-free survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55-1.1) and more severe adverse events (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.15-5.96).
ContextThis study refines the choice of treatment for early HCC within Milan criteria in patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, showing that minimally invasive options (LLR or mbpRFA) are preferable to open resection due to comparable or better survival outcomes with less morbidity.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), 'AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma,' Hepatology, 2023 (78(6):1922-1965).

Decision at stakethe choice of curative treatment for early HCC within Milan criteria

AASLD 2023 stages confirmed HCC using the BCLC framework and links stage to therapy (curative resection, ablation, or transplantation within Milan criteria for very-early/early disease; TACE and other locoregional therapy for intermediate disease; systemic therapy for advanced disease).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perform HCC surveillance in adults with cirrhosis of any etiology who are able to benefit from HCC treatment, accordingly, do not enroll patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh class C cirrhosis unless they are candidates for (or listed for) liver transplantation, and do not surveil those with life-limiting comorbidity (life expectancy <1-2 years) that transplantation cannot remedy, and in select non-cirrhotic chronic HBV carriers at elevated risk (e.g., active hepatitis/high viral load, family history of HCC, African/African-American ancestry, Asian men >40 and Asian women >50; AASLD references risk scores such as PAGE-B but stops short of mandating a specific numeric cutoff). Surveillance is abdominal ultrasound PLUS serum AFP at ~6-month (semiannual) intervals, a change from prior AASLD guidance, which had left AFP optional (Strong recommendation). Pursue diagnostic evaluation for an AFP ≥20 ng/mL or for a rising AFP, defined as a doubling of AFP or an increase on two consecutive tests even if the absolute value is <20 ng/mL. Any suspicious ultrasound observation ≥1 cm, or an inadequate/limited ultrasound, should be evaluated with multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI interpreted with CT/MRI LI-RADS. AASLD 2023 stages confirmed HCC using the BCLC framework and links stage to therapy (curative resection, ablation, or transplantation within Milan criteria for very-early/early disease; TACE and other locoregional therapy for intermediate disease; systemic therapy for advanced disease). Its first-line systemic options for advanced HCC with preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A) are atezolizumab+bevacizumab OR durvalumab+tremelimumab (STRIDE) as preferred, with sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab monotherapy as alternatives when the preferred combinations are contraindicated. After potentially curative therapy, continue surveillance for recurrence given high recurrence risk (AASLD monitors with cross-sectional contrast-enhanced imaging, not ultrasound, in the early post-treatment period).

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), 'AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma,' Hepatology, 2023 (78(6):1922-1965). · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Hobeika C … Nault JC · Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD retrospective · n=411 · Aug 1, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Transmural improvement may be an acceptable target in patients with Crohns disease.

New evidenceCrohn's diseasebiologicstherapeutic drug monitoringIBD surgery
Clinical takeawayConsider transmural improvement (SES-CD decrease ≥50% and sMaRIA decrease ≥1 with ≤25% bowel wall thickness reduction) as a treatment target in Crohn's patients unable to achieve transmural remission, but monitor stricturing disease more closely due to higher surgery (HR 4.043) and hospitalization (HR 3.704) risks.
What it foundTransmural improvement in Crohn's disease reduced surgery to 16.3% vs 46.8% with no transmural improvement, hospitalization to 30.8% vs 55.4%, and steroid use to 34.6% vs 51.1%.
ContextRefines current practice by suggesting transmural improvement as a viable alternative to transmural remission, which is seldom achieved, while confirming its association with better outcomes.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association, 'AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surgical Risk Assessment and Perioperative Management in Cirrhosis: Expert Review' (Northup PG et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17(4):595-606). DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.043, PMID 30273751.

Decision at stakewhether to clear Crohn's disease patients for elective surgery based on transmural disease activity

Defer elective surgery for active GI bleeding, active IBD flare, recent pancreatitis, or unoptimized anemia, and specify perioperative precautions (stress-dose steroids, biologic hold matrix, GLP-1/SGLT2 holds, aspiration precautions) where indicated.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Determine GI surgical clearance based on the specific condition and its activity rather than an automatic sign-off: most stable chronic GI conditions (GERD, IBS, controlled IBD, compensated MASLD, asymptomatic gallstones) may be cleared, while active conditions, cirrhosis, and perioperative drug management require explicit stratification and documentation. For any cirrhotic patient, perform mandatory risk stratification with VOCAL-Penn and Child-Pugh class before clearance; manage variceal prophylaxis per individualized endoscopic and hemodynamic assessment (including NSBB for appropriate candidates) and address rebalanced hemostasis without prophylactic INR correction. Defer elective surgery for active GI bleeding, active IBD flare, recent pancreatitis, or unoptimized anemia, and specify perioperative precautions (stress-dose steroids, biologic hold matrix, GLP-1/SGLT2 holds, aspiration precautions) where indicated.

American Gastroenterological Association, 'AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surgical Risk Assessment and Perioperative Management in Cirrhosis: Expert Review' (Northup PG et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17(4):595-606). DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.043, PMID 30273751. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Fernandes SR … Correia LA · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology retrospective · n=5,465 · Aug 4, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Validation of Liver Cirrhosis Network Criteria for Compensated Cirrhosis Through Natural Language Processing for Predicting Liver-Related Events.

New evidencecirrhosisartificial intelligencebiomarkerepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider using LCN criteria (FIB-4, platelet counts, etc.) to stratify risk in patients with ICD-coded cirrhosis, as it predicts a 44% higher likelihood of LREs, though feasibility in clinical practice requires further validation.
What it foundMeeting the Liver Cirrhosis Network (LCN) criteria (FIB-4, platelet counts, etc.) increased the probability of a liver-related event (LRE; ascites, SBP, hepatic encephalopathy, HCC, or variceal bleed) by 44% in multivariable analysis versus patients not meeting these criteria, with each additional LCN component increasing LRE risk by 43%.
ContextRefines risk stratification in compensated cirrhosis: LCN criteria, previously consensus-based, now validated as predictive of LREs in a large VA cohort.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211.

Decision at stakerisk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease with non-invasive tests

Risk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with non-invasive tests before defaulting to endoscopy.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Scope: this primary document covers portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis ONLY. Everything else in the current entry (HCC surveillance, transplant referral, nutrition, vaccination, ascites/SBP/HE/HRS/ACLF management) belongs to the separate documents listed as supporting sources and must not be attributed to this guidance. Risk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with non-invasive tests before defaulting to endoscopy. By vibration-controlled transient elastography, liver stiffness (LSM) under 10 kPa excludes cACLD, 10 to 14.9 kPa is suggestive and warrants further testing, and 15 kPa or above rules cACLD in. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e. HVPG above 10 mm Hg) is ruled in non-invasively by LSM at or above 25 kPa alone, or LSM 20 to 24.9 kPa with platelets below 150 x 10^9/L, or LSM 15 to 19.9 kPa with platelets below 110 x 10^9/L. Where spleen stiffness measurement is available, values below 21 kPa argue against CSPH and above 50 kPa argue for it. These non-invasive cutoffs are conditional probability thresholds, not universal diagnostic rules, and hold only when their derivation conditions are met. They were established in compensated advanced chronic liver disease of viral (treated or untreated HBV/HCV), alcohol-related, or non-obese (BMI under 30) MASLD etiology, and are not validated for and should not be applied to cholestatic (e.g. PBC, PSC), vascular, or other etiologies, in which different cutoffs apply. They also require a technically reliable liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, fasting, at least 10 valid acquisitions, and an IQR/median ratio below 30 percent, and are confounded by factors that raise liver stiffness independently of fibrosis, including ALT flares or acute hepatitis, extrahepatic cholestasis, hepatic congestion (right heart failure), and recent food intake; Baveno VII recommends confirming an LSM-based rule-in on a repeat measurement obtained on a separate day. The spleen stiffness cutoffs apply only to a dedicated 100 Hz spleen module, carry a higher technical failure rate, are machine-dependent, and are not interchangeable with values obtained using the standard 50 Hz liver probe. Where these population or acquisition conditions are not met, the numeric thresholds do not reliably classify CSPH, and HVPG measurement or endoscopy is required rather than a non-invasive determination. Preserve the gray zone: LSM 15 to 25 kPa without a qualifying platelet count is explicitly indeterminate (roughly 40 to 60 percent of cACLD patients) and calls for HVPG and/or endoscopy rather than assumption in either direction. Once CSPH is established, offer a non-selective beta-blocker, carvedilol preferred at 12.5 mg/day, to lower portal pressure and prevent FIRST decompensation, on the strength of PREDESCI. This is a treat-the-pressure strategy rather than a treat-the-varices one: because a patient already on NSBB for CSPH would not have management changed by the finding, screening endoscopy becomes unnecessary for most such patients. Screening EGD is still indicated where elastography is unavailable, technically difficult, or gives discordant results, and for patients who do not meet non-invasive criteria. Standard beta-blocker contraindications (severe asthma, advanced heart block, bradyarrhythmias) continue to apply. For varices needing treatment managed endoscopically, band ligation is repeated every 2 to 4 weeks until obliteration, with surveillance endoscopy at 6 months and annually thereafter. Gastric/cardiofundal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate injection or EUS-guided coil embolization rather than banding, with hepatology involvement. In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13. Keep the document's own qualifier: there is no established universal MELD or CTP cutoff at which TIPS is mandatory, and the decision is case-by-case with hepatology consultation. Statin use in compensated cirrhosis is NOT a recommendation traceable to this document; the current entry's statin sentence needs its own source or removal. Verification note: the Hepatology full text is paywalled (402/403 on direct fetch). Document identity, title, year, volume, pages and authorship were confirmed via Crossref and PubMed metadata; the numeric thresholds above were corroborated from two independent peer-reviewed commentaries on this specific guidance and match the Baveno VII rule-of-five, but were not read verbatim from the primary PDF. A human should confirm the exact guidance-statement wording against the full text before this entry is treated as quotation-grade.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Silvey S … Bajaj JS · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink

The read

the next 11, in full

IBD· 1

IBD retrospective · n=3,262,623 · Aug 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Suicide Attempts, Schizophrenia, and Depression Among Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: Data From a Large Database.

Epidemiologyepidemiology
Clinical takeawayScreen all IBD patients (not just CD) for depression and schizophrenia, prioritizing females, smokers, and those with psychiatric history; discuss suicide risk and refer high-risk patients to mental health services given elevated mortality.
What it foundIBD patients had higher rates of suicide attempts (1.5% CD, 1.1% UC), schizophrenia (1.3% CD, 1.4% UC), and depression (25.7% CD, 23.0% UC) compared to general population rates (not stated in abstract); schizophrenia (OR 9.873) and depression (OR 8.964) were strongest predictors of suicide attempts, with 20% mortality in attempters vs 14.6% non-attempters.
ContextConfirms and quantifies psychiatric comorbidity in IBD, highlighting schizophrenia and depression as major suicide risk factors with mortality consequences.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes)

Decision at stakeproactive mental health screening and integrated psychology services for IBD patients

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA by route and extent (suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided, oral plus rectal for extensive); if 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by EFFICACY TIER, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab; intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab; lower: adalimumab. PREVIOUSLY TNF-EXPOSED, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab; lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod - S1P modulators are weakest in exactly this group. Do not cycle within the anti-TNF class after primary non-response; switch mechanism. Apply treat-to-target (STRIDE-II) to endoscopic improvement (MES 0-1). Screen for acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts and admit for IV steroids. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after DIAGNOSIS for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening.

ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes) ↗
Richter V … Abu-Freha N · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Hepatology· 5

Hepatology prospective cohort · n=75 · Jul 30, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Decompression of portal hypertension by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt reverses markers of gut barrier dysfunction and cirrhosis-associated immune dysfunction.

New evidencecirrhosisportal hypertensionbasic sciencebiomarker
Clinical takeawayTIPS is already standard of care for select patients with decompensated cirrhosis, ascites, and portal hypertension; this study reinforces its role in reversing CAID and reducing bacterial infections, particularly in those achieving ascites resolution.
What it foundTIPS reduced markers of gut barrier dysfunction, bacterial translocation, systemic inflammation, and monocyte activation in decompensated cirrhosis, with CAID improvement linked to ascites resolution and fewer bacterial infections.
ContextConfirms PH as a central driver of CAID and supports TIPS, already SOC, in restoring immune homeostasis in decompensated cirrhosis with ascites.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), "Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of Ascites, Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis and Hepatorenal Syndrome: 2021 Practice Guidance" (Biggins et al.), Hepatology, 2021

Decision at stakethe role of TIPS in managing cirrhosis-associated immune dysfunction and ascites

Interpret SAAG to classify the cause: SAAG ≥1.1 g/dL indicates portal hypertension (~97% accuracy), while SAAG <1.1 g/dL points to non-portal-hypertensive (peritoneal) causes such as peritoneal carcinomatosis, tuberculous peritonitis, nephrotic syndrome, or pancreatic/chylous ascites.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perform a diagnostic paracentesis in all patients with new-onset ascites that is accessible for sampling, and in any patient with cirrhosis and ascites who is emergently admitted to the hospital for any reason, to rule out SBP even in the absence of signs or symptoms of infection (up to one-third of SBP is asymptomatic). Also perform it whenever a patient with ascites develops signs, symptoms, or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of infection, and in patients with tense ascites and AKI to exclude SBP as the cause. LVP/paracentesis is safe even with coagulopathy: elevated prothrombin time (INR >1.5) or thrombocytopenia (platelets <50×10^9/L) is not a contraindication, and routine transfusion of clotting factors or platelets is NOT recommended, with possible exceptions in disseminated intravascular coagulation, or uremia with thrombocytopenia (where desmopressin may be considered, especially with prior bleeding). The initial laboratory investigation of ascitic fluid should include ascitic fluid neutrophil (PMN) count, ascitic fluid total protein, and ascitic fluid albumin plus a simultaneous serum albumin to calculate the serum-ascites albumin gradient (SAAG). Ascitic fluid culture is not part of that routine initial panel but should be obtained whenever SBP is being evaluated (routinely for inpatients and when secondary bacterial peritonitis is suspected); when cultured, inoculate ≥10 mL of fluid into aerobic and anaerobic blood culture bottles at the bedside, before the first dose of antibiotics. Amylase, cytology, glucose, LDH, and mycobacterial (AFB/ADA) or triglyceride testing are not routinely indicated and should be guided by clinical context (e.g., suspected pancreatic, malignant, secondary-bacterial, tuberculous, or chylous ascites). Interpret SAAG to classify the cause: SAAG ≥1.1 g/dL indicates portal hypertension (~97% accuracy), while SAAG <1.1 g/dL points to non-portal-hypertensive (peritoneal) causes such as peritoneal carcinomatosis, tuberculous peritonitis, nephrotic syndrome, or pancreatic/chylous ascites. Within high-SAAG ascites, use ascitic total protein to distinguish the source: total protein <2.5 g/dL suggests cirrhosis (also massive liver metastasis, late Budd-Chiari), whereas total protein ≥2.5 g/dL suggests a postsinusoidal/cardiac source (heart failure, portal vein thrombosis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, early Budd-Chiari), directing workup toward right-heart catheterization, hepatic-vein Doppler, and echocardiography. The diagnosis of SBP is established with an ascitic fluid absolute neutrophil (PMN) count >250/mm^3 (with or without a positive culture, and in the absence of a surgically treatable intra-abdominal source of infection). Spontaneous bacterial empyema (SBE) is the analogous spontaneous infection of a pre-existing hepatic hydrothorax, not a parapneumonic effusion, and is established by the same pleural fluid PMN count >250/mm^3, but only after pneumonia and other secondary causes of the effusion have been excluded; despite the term "empyema" it is managed as an infection with antibiotics, and a chest tube should NOT be placed.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), "Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of Ascites, Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis and Hepatorenal Syndrome: 2021 Practice Guidance" (Biggins et al.), Hepatology, 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Piecha F … in Cooperation with the German Cirrhosis Study Group of the DGVS · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=364 · Jul 30, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Rate and clinical predictors of skeletal muscle loss in patients with cirrhosis.

New evidencecirrhosisepidemiologybiomarker
Clinical takeawayMonitor skeletal muscle index (SMI) via CT in ambulatory adults with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation, especially those with ascites or higher MELD-Na, as RML predicts waitlist mortality. Future research is needed to identify effective interventions to mitigate muscle loss in this population.
What it foundRapid muscle loss (RML, < -7.4%/year) in ambulatory adults with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation predicted higher waitlist mortality at 12 months (32% vs 10%) and 24 months (75% vs 27%).
ContextConfirms and quantifies the prognostic value of muscle loss in cirrhosis, previously suspected but poorly defined. Links RML to ascites and MELD-Na, refining risk stratification.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211.

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Scope: this primary document covers portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis ONLY. Everything else in the current entry (HCC surveillance, transplant referral, nutrition, vaccination, ascites/SBP/HE/HRS/ACLF management) belongs to the separate documents listed as supporting sources and must not be attributed to this guidance. Risk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with non-invasive tests before defaulting to endoscopy. By vibration-controlled transient elastography, liver stiffness (LSM) under 10 kPa excludes cACLD, 10 to 14.9 kPa is suggestive and warrants further testing, and 15 kPa or above rules cACLD in. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e. HVPG above 10 mm Hg) is ruled in non-invasively by LSM at or above 25 kPa alone, or LSM 20 to 24.9 kPa with platelets below 150 x 10^9/L, or LSM 15 to 19.9 kPa with platelets below 110 x 10^9/L. Where spleen stiffness measurement is available, values below 21 kPa argue against CSPH and above 50 kPa argue for it. These non-invasive cutoffs are conditional probability thresholds, not universal diagnostic rules, and hold only when their derivation conditions are met. They were established in compensated advanced chronic liver disease of viral (treated or untreated HBV/HCV), alcohol-related, or non-obese (BMI under 30) MASLD etiology, and are not validated for and should not be applied to cholestatic (e.g. PBC, PSC), vascular, or other etiologies, in which different cutoffs apply. They also require a technically reliable liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, fasting, at least 10 valid acquisitions, and an IQR/median ratio below 30 percent, and are confounded by factors that raise liver stiffness independently of fibrosis, including ALT flares or acute hepatitis, extrahepatic cholestasis, hepatic congestion (right heart failure), and recent food intake; Baveno VII recommends confirming an LSM-based rule-in on a repeat measurement obtained on a separate day. The spleen stiffness cutoffs apply only to a dedicated 100 Hz spleen module, carry a higher technical failure rate, are machine-dependent, and are not interchangeable with values obtained using the standard 50 Hz liver probe. Where these population or acquisition conditions are not met, the numeric thresholds do not reliably classify CSPH, and HVPG measurement or endoscopy is required rather than a non-invasive determination. Preserve the gray zone: LSM 15 to 25 kPa without a qualifying platelet count is explicitly indeterminate (roughly 40 to 60 percent of cACLD patients) and calls for HVPG and/or endoscopy rather than assumption in either direction. Once CSPH is established, offer a non-selective beta-blocker, carvedilol preferred at 12.5 mg/day, to lower portal pressure and prevent FIRST decompensation, on the strength of PREDESCI. This is a treat-the-pressure strategy rather than a treat-the-varices one: because a patient already on NSBB for CSPH would not have management changed by the finding, screening endoscopy becomes unnecessary for most such patients. Screening EGD is still indicated where elastography is unavailable, technically difficult, or gives discordant results, and for patients who do not meet non-invasive criteria. Standard beta-blocker contraindications (severe asthma, advanced heart block, bradyarrhythmias) continue to apply. For varices needing treatment managed endoscopically, band ligation is repeated every 2 to 4 weeks until obliteration, with surveillance endoscopy at 6 months and annually thereafter. Gastric/cardiofundal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate injection or EUS-guided coil embolization rather than banding, with hepatology involvement. In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13. Keep the document's own qualifier: there is no established universal MELD or CTP cutoff at which TIPS is mandatory, and the decision is case-by-case with hepatology consultation. Statin use in compensated cirrhosis is NOT a recommendation traceable to this document; the current entry's statin sentence needs its own source or removal. Verification note: the Hepatology full text is paywalled (402/403 on direct fetch). Document identity, title, year, volume, pages and authorship were confirmed via Crossref and PubMed metadata; the numeric thresholds above were corroborated from two independent peer-reviewed commentaries on this specific guidance and match the Baveno VII rule-of-five, but were not read verbatim from the primary PDF. A human should confirm the exact guidance-statement wording against the full text before this entry is treated as quotation-grade.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Yang TC … Lai JC · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology meta analysis · n=1,385 · Aug 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Carvedilol Versus Endoscopic Variceal Ligation for Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

New evidencecirrhosisportal hypertensionvariceal bleedingsystematic review
Clinical takeawayConsider carvedilol as a noninvasive alternative to EVL for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding, especially where endoscopy access is limited.
What it foundCarvedilol and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.64-1.54), variceal bleeding (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.75-1.45), or bleeding-related mortality (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 0.83-3.50) in 1385 patients with cirrhosis.
ContextConfirms current guidelines that both carvedilol and EVL are effective for primary prophylaxis, with no clear superiority. Prior uncertainty about comparative efficacy is resolved.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211.

Decision at stakechoosing between carvedilol and endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Scope: this primary document covers portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis ONLY. In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Scope: this primary document covers portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis ONLY. Everything else in the current entry (HCC surveillance, transplant referral, nutrition, vaccination, ascites/SBP/HE/HRS/ACLF management) belongs to the separate documents listed as supporting sources and must not be attributed to this guidance. Risk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with non-invasive tests before defaulting to endoscopy. By vibration-controlled transient elastography, liver stiffness (LSM) under 10 kPa excludes cACLD, 10 to 14.9 kPa is suggestive and warrants further testing, and 15 kPa or above rules cACLD in. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e. HVPG above 10 mm Hg) is ruled in non-invasively by LSM at or above 25 kPa alone, or LSM 20 to 24.9 kPa with platelets below 150 x 10^9/L, or LSM 15 to 19.9 kPa with platelets below 110 x 10^9/L. Where spleen stiffness measurement is available, values below 21 kPa argue against CSPH and above 50 kPa argue for it. These non-invasive cutoffs are conditional probability thresholds, not universal diagnostic rules, and hold only when their derivation conditions are met. They were established in compensated advanced chronic liver disease of viral (treated or untreated HBV/HCV), alcohol-related, or non-obese (BMI under 30) MASLD etiology, and are not validated for and should not be applied to cholestatic (e.g. PBC, PSC), vascular, or other etiologies, in which different cutoffs apply. They also require a technically reliable liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, fasting, at least 10 valid acquisitions, and an IQR/median ratio below 30 percent, and are confounded by factors that raise liver stiffness independently of fibrosis, including ALT flares or acute hepatitis, extrahepatic cholestasis, hepatic congestion (right heart failure), and recent food intake; Baveno VII recommends confirming an LSM-based rule-in on a repeat measurement obtained on a separate day. The spleen stiffness cutoffs apply only to a dedicated 100 Hz spleen module, carry a higher technical failure rate, are machine-dependent, and are not interchangeable with values obtained using the standard 50 Hz liver probe. Where these population or acquisition conditions are not met, the numeric thresholds do not reliably classify CSPH, and HVPG measurement or endoscopy is required rather than a non-invasive determination. Preserve the gray zone: LSM 15 to 25 kPa without a qualifying platelet count is explicitly indeterminate (roughly 40 to 60 percent of cACLD patients) and calls for HVPG and/or endoscopy rather than assumption in either direction. Once CSPH is established, offer a non-selective beta-blocker, carvedilol preferred at 12.5 mg/day, to lower portal pressure and prevent FIRST decompensation, on the strength of PREDESCI. This is a treat-the-pressure strategy rather than a treat-the-varices one: because a patient already on NSBB for CSPH would not have management changed by the finding, screening endoscopy becomes unnecessary for most such patients. Screening EGD is still indicated where elastography is unavailable, technically difficult, or gives discordant results, and for patients who do not meet non-invasive criteria. Standard beta-blocker contraindications (severe asthma, advanced heart block, bradyarrhythmias) continue to apply. For varices needing treatment managed endoscopically, band ligation is repeated every 2 to 4 weeks until obliteration, with surveillance endoscopy at 6 months and annually thereafter. Gastric/cardiofundal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate injection or EUS-guided coil embolization rather than banding, with hepatology involvement. In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13. Keep the document's own qualifier: there is no established universal MELD or CTP cutoff at which TIPS is mandatory, and the decision is case-by-case with hepatology consultation. Statin use in compensated cirrhosis is NOT a recommendation traceable to this document; the current entry's statin sentence needs its own source or removal. Verification note: the Hepatology full text is paywalled (402/403 on direct fetch). Document identity, title, year, volume, pages and authorship were confirmed via Crossref and PubMed metadata; the numeric thresholds above were corroborated from two independent peer-reviewed commentaries on this specific guidance and match the Baveno VII rule-of-five, but were not read verbatim from the primary PDF. A human should confirm the exact guidance-statement wording against the full text before this entry is treated as quotation-grade.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Almeida LGS … de Vasconcelos Carneiro M · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology retrospective · n=1,464 · Aug 1, 2026 · Liver International · IF 6.7

Baseline DCP May Modify Response to Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab Versus Durvalumab-Tremelimumab in Unresectable HCC.

New evidencehepatocellular carcinomabiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider measuring baseline DCP in unresectable HCC to guide immunotherapy selection: Atez/Bev may be preferred at lower DCP levels, while Dur/Tre gains relative benefit as DCP rises. Interpret DCP as a continuum rather than a strict cutoff.
What it foundAtezolizumab-bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) had a stable ORR across DCP levels, while durvalumab-tremelimumab (Dur/Tre) showed increasing ORR with higher DCP, with a prespecified 10% ΔORR threshold considered clinically meaningful. However, the DCP level at which ΔORR exceeded 10% varied across analyses, supporting a transition zone rather than a fixed cutoff.
ContextCurrent practice lacks biomarkers to choose between first-line immunotherapies for unresectable HCC. This study identifies DCP as a potential modifier of response, refining rather than replacing existing options.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), 'AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma,' Hepatology, 2023 (78(6):1922-1965).

Decision at stakechoosing first-line systemic therapy for advanced HCC with preserved liver function

Its first-line systemic options for advanced HCC with preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A) are atezolizumab+bevacizumab OR durvalumab+tremelimumab (STRIDE) as preferred, with sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab monotherapy as alternatives when the preferred combinations are contraindicated.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perform HCC surveillance in adults with cirrhosis of any etiology who are able to benefit from HCC treatment, accordingly, do not enroll patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh class C cirrhosis unless they are candidates for (or listed for) liver transplantation, and do not surveil those with life-limiting comorbidity (life expectancy <1-2 years) that transplantation cannot remedy, and in select non-cirrhotic chronic HBV carriers at elevated risk (e.g., active hepatitis/high viral load, family history of HCC, African/African-American ancestry, Asian men >40 and Asian women >50; AASLD references risk scores such as PAGE-B but stops short of mandating a specific numeric cutoff). Surveillance is abdominal ultrasound PLUS serum AFP at ~6-month (semiannual) intervals, a change from prior AASLD guidance, which had left AFP optional (Strong recommendation). Pursue diagnostic evaluation for an AFP ≥20 ng/mL or for a rising AFP, defined as a doubling of AFP or an increase on two consecutive tests even if the absolute value is <20 ng/mL. Any suspicious ultrasound observation ≥1 cm, or an inadequate/limited ultrasound, should be evaluated with multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI interpreted with CT/MRI LI-RADS. AASLD 2023 stages confirmed HCC using the BCLC framework and links stage to therapy (curative resection, ablation, or transplantation within Milan criteria for very-early/early disease; TACE and other locoregional therapy for intermediate disease; systemic therapy for advanced disease). Its first-line systemic options for advanced HCC with preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A) are atezolizumab+bevacizumab OR durvalumab+tremelimumab (STRIDE) as preferred, with sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab monotherapy as alternatives when the preferred combinations are contraindicated. After potentially curative therapy, continue surveillance for recurrence given high recurrence risk (AASLD monitors with cross-sectional contrast-enhanced imaging, not ultrasound, in the early post-treatment period).

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), 'AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma,' Hepatology, 2023 (78(6):1922-1965). · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Tanaka K … Real‐life Practice Experts for HCC (RELPEC) Study Group and hepatocellular carcinoma experts from 48 clinics in Japan (HCC 48) Group · Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology retrospective · n=917,345 · Jul 30, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Trends, Burden, and Impact of Infections on Outcomes Among Patients With Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis: A Nationwide Analysis.

New evidenceepidemiologyalcohol-associated liver disease
Clinical takeawayMonitor adult inpatients with AH closely for common infections (UTIs, pneumonia, SSTIs) and implement standard infection prevention and management protocols to mitigate complications like sepsis, AKI, and shock.
What it foundAmong adult inpatients with alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), 20.3% developed infections, with higher odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.84), sepsis (aOR 1.87), AKI (aOR 1.78), shock (aOR 2.54), ICU admission (aOR 2.52), and thrombotic events (aOR 2.02-2.39) compared to AH patients without infections.
ContextConfirms prior evidence linking infections to worse outcomes in adult inpatients with AH, quantifying the increased risk across multiple complications compared to AH patients without infections.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney International 2024;105(4S):S117-S314, Chapter 4, 'Medication management and drug stewardship in CKD' (with Recommendation 3.16.1 / Practice Points 3.16.2-3.16.3 on anticoagulation and Practice Point 3.14.3 on acute gout).

Decision at stakethe need for early identification and management of infections in patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Dose and select GI/hepatology drugs by GFR, and treat imaging contrast as a procedure-specific decision rather than a contraindication. KDIGO 2024 Chapter 4 gives practice points, not graded recommendations. Nephrotoxin stewardship (PP 4.1.1-4.1.3): people with CKD may be more susceptible to nephrotoxic effects, always weigh benefits versus potential harms before prescribing; monitor eGFR, electrolytes and drug levels in those on medications with narrow therapeutic windows, potential adverse effects or nephrotoxicity; review and limit OTC medicines and dietary/herbal remedies. The guideline names two GI-relevant nephrotoxins in Table 31: NSAIDs (reduced prostaglandin-dependent kidney blood flow, acute interstitial nephritis, nephrotic syndrome; alternative = acetaminophen) and proton pump inhibitors (AKI and CKD via tubulointerstitial/acute interstitial nephritis; alternative = H2-receptor antagonists). On NSAIDs the guideline is deliberately conditional, not prohibitive: indiscriminate chronic OTC NSAID use is associated with higher risk of kidney failure and should be discouraged, but 'judicious NSAID use, under careful supervision of a nephrologist, may be preferred to other pain medications such as opioids.' For acute gout specifically (PP 3.14.3), low-dose colchicine or intra-articular/oral glucocorticoids are preferable to NSAIDs (colchicine dose adjustment considered at CKD G5; e.g. prednisolone 30 mg orally for 3-5 days as an alternative). Dosing (PP 4.2.1-4.2.5): consider GFR for renally cleared drugs; validated eGFRcr equations suffice for most drug dosing; use creatinine+cystatin C or measured GFR where more accuracy is needed (narrow therapeutic range, drug toxicity, unreliable eGFRcr); use non-BSA-indexed eGFR at extremes of body weight; adapt dosing when GFR or volume of distribution is not at steady state. Stewardship (PP 4.3.1-4.3.3): perform medication review periodically and at transitions of care; consider planned discontinuation of metformin, ACEi, ARBs and SGLT2i 48-72 hours before elective surgery, but note that failure to restart is itself a source of harm, so a clear documented restart plan must be communicated (PP 4.3.2). Anticoagulation (Rec 3.16.1, 1C): NOACs are recommended in preference to vitamin K antagonists for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation in CKD G1-G4; NOAC dose adjustment for GFR is required, with caution at G4-G5 (PP 3.16.2); duration of pre-procedure NOAC hold depends on procedural bleeding risk, the specific NOAC, and GFR (PP 3.16.3, Figure 44). Imaging (PP 4.4.1): image on general-population indications, with individualized risk/benefit, the guideline explicitly warns against harm from delayed, omitted or suboptimal imaging driven by fear of contrast. Iodinated contrast: assess AKI risk with validated tools for intra-arterial cardiac procedures (PP 4.4.1.1); manage intravenous contrast per radiology-society consensus statements in people with AKI or GFR <60 (CKD G3a-G5) undergoing elective investigation (PP 4.4.1.2), which the Work Group summarizes as, use low- or iso-osmolar media at the minimum diagnostic dose; withdraw nonessential potentially nephrotoxic medications (NSAIDs, diuretics, aminoglycosides, amphotericin, platins, zoledronate, methotrexate) in people with AKI or eGFR <30 for 24-48 hours before and 48 hours after contrast; at eGFR >30 without AKI metformin need not be stopped and no post-procedure GFR testing is needed, whereas with AKI or eGFR ≤30 metformin should be stopped at or before injection and not restarted for at least 48 hours and only if GFR is stable and use has been reassessed; consider withholding RAASi ≥48 hours before elective contrast-enhanced CT in at-risk people; avoid dehydration in non-dialysis people with eGFR <30 or AKI receiving IV contrast; N-acetylcysteine, ascorbic acid, furosemide, dopamine, fenoldopam and calcium channel blockers have not shown consistent benefit, and prophylactic peri-contrast hemodialysis is potentially harmful and is not recommended. Gadolinium (PP 4.4.2.1): for GFR <30 (CKD G4-G5) requiring gadolinium, preferentially offer ACR group II and III agents, greatest NSF risk is in AKI, KRT and CKD G4-G5, most unconfounded cases involved group I agents, and no case has been reported since 2012.

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney International 2024;105(4S):S117-S314, Chapter 4, 'Medication management and drug stewardship in CKD' (with Recommendation 3.16.1 / Practice Points 3.16.2-3.16.3 on anticoagulation and Practice Point 3.14.3 on acute gout). · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Singh C … Roytman M · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Esophagus/Reflux· 1

Esophagus/Reflux review · Jul 30, 2026 · J Neurogastro Motil · IF 3.4

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Reflux-like Phenotypes: Using Lyon Consensus 2.0 to Guide Clinical Approach.

Guideline / reviewGERDproton pump inhibitorsesophageal motilityguideline
Clinical takeawayUse Lyon 2.0 criteria to phenotype reflux-like symptoms in patients with unclear diagnoses after initial evaluation: manage mucosal injury with reflux treatment and surveillance; treat abnormal reflux burden with reflux therapy; address E-DGBI with functional disorder management. Assess for overlapping hypervigilance/anxiety. Specific reflux burden thresholds and criteria are detailed in the source.
What it foundThe Lyon Consensus 2.0 integrates mucosal injury (Montreal), abnormal reflux burden (specific thresholds not provided here; see source), and Rome V criteria to phenotype reflux-like symptoms into GERD (mucosal injury or abnormal reflux) vs. E-DGBI (functional).
ContextRefines prior Montreal (mucosal injury) and Rome (functional) criteria by adding Lyon's reflux burden thresholds, enabling clearer phenotyping and targeted management in select patients with ambiguous presentations.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56

Decision at stakethe diagnosis and phenotyping of GERD and reflux-like symptoms

Where GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy shows no objective evidence, perform reflux monitoring OFF therapy to establish the diagnosis (strong, low); conversely, do NOT perform off-therapy reflux monitoring solely as a diagnostic test in patients already known to have LA grade C or D esophagitis or long-segment Barrett's, because the diagnosis is already established (strong, low).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

In patients with classic GERD symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation) and no alarm symptoms, give an 8-week trial of empiric PPI ONCE DAILY before a meal (strong, moderate evidence); administer PPI 30-60 minutes before a meal rather than at bedtime (strong, moderate). Endoscopy is the FIRST test in patients presenting with dysphagia or other alarm symptoms, the guideline names weight loss and GI bleeding, and also in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (strong, low). If classic symptoms respond to the 8-week trial, attempt to discontinue the PPI (conditional, low); for patients without erosive esophagitis or Barrett's whose symptoms resolved, an attempt at discontinuation should be made; patients requiring maintenance should take the lowest effective dose. If symptoms do not respond adequately to the 8-week trial, or return on discontinuation, perform diagnostic endoscopy, ideally after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks (strong, low). Where GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy shows no objective evidence, perform reflux monitoring OFF therapy to establish the diagnosis (strong, low); conversely, do NOT perform off-therapy reflux monitoring solely as a diagnostic test in patients already known to have LA grade C or D esophagitis or long-segment Barrett's, because the diagnosis is already established (strong, low). In refractory GERD, optimize PPI therapy first (strong, moderate); then pH monitoring OFF PPIs if GERD was not previously established by pH study, long-segment Barrett's, or LA grade C/D esophagitis, versus impedance-pH ON PPIs where GERD is already established but symptoms persist on twice-daily PPI (both conditional, low). Before antireflux surgery or endoscopic therapy, HRM is recommended to rule out achalasia and absent contractility, with provocative testing (e.g., multiple rapid swallows) to identify contractile reserve in ineffective esophageal motility; on-therapy reflux monitoring is suggested before intervention in patients with prior objective GERD findings who remain symptomatic. Antireflux surgery by an experienced surgeon is an option for patients with OBJECTIVE evidence of GERD, with severe esophagitis (LA C/D), large hiatal hernia, or persistent troublesome symptoms benefiting most; TIF is suggested only for troublesome regurgitation or heartburn in patients who do not wish to undergo antireflux surgery and who are WITHOUT severe esophagitis (LA C/D) or hiatal hernia >2 cm. For extraesophageal symptoms WITHOUT typical GERD symptoms, perform reflux testing BEFORE starting PPI therapy (strong, moderate); with concomitant typical symptoms, consider twice-daily PPI for 8-12 weeks before further testing (conditional, low). Lifestyle: weight loss in overweight/obese patients (strong, moderate); avoid meals within 2-3 hours of bedtime, avoid tobacco, avoid trigger foods, and elevate the head of the bed for nighttime symptoms (all conditional, low).

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Schroeder MK, Gyawali CP · Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Pancreas/Biliary· 3

Pancreas/Biliary retrospective · n=63 · Aug 1, 2026 · Liver International · IF 6.7

Prognostic Impact of Concomitant Genomic Alterations in FGFR2-Positive Cholangiocarcinoma Treated With Pemigatinib.

New evidencecholangiocarcinomabiomarker
Clinical takeawayCDKN2A/BAP1 mutations may identify patients with poorer pemigatinib response, but current SOC does not yet support altering therapy based on these findings. Further validation is needed.
What it foundIn FGFR2-positive CCA patients treated with pemigatinib, those with CDKN2A mutations had shorter PFS vs wild-type (4.79 vs. 8.66 months, HR: 3.48) and BAP1 mutations had shorter PFS vs wild-type (5.97 vs. 8.52 months, HR: 2.55); no OS difference was observed.
ContextReal-world study of pemigatinib in FGFR2-positive CCA, highlighting prognostic (not predictive) biomarkers without proven therapeutic alternatives.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· NCCN Biliary Tract Cancers V2.2025 (V1.2026 in circulation) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance on PSC and Cholangiocarcinoma

Decision at stakethe use of pemigatinib for advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 alterations

For unresectable or metastatic disease, first-line systemic therapy is gemcitabine plus cisplatin combined with a PD-L1/PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor, either durvalumab (TOPAZ-1) or pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-966), both listed as category 1 preferred options by NCCN; comprehensive molecular/genomic profiling is recommended for all unresectable/metastatic candidates for systemic therapy to identify actionable targets (e.g., FGFR2 fusions, IDH1 mutations, HER2 amplification) for later-line therapy.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Stage cholangiocarcinoma with multiphasic MRI/MRCP plus CT chest/abdomen/pelvis, obtain tissue via ERCP brush cytology with FISH, cholangioscopy-directed biopsy, or EUS-FNA (avoiding primary perihilar tumor sampling if liver transplant is being considered due to theoretical seeding risk), and manage through a multidisciplinary tumor board with treatment stratified by tumor location: resect (anatomic hepatectomy for intrahepatic, hemihepatectomy with bile duct resection for perihilar, Whipple for distal) with adjuvant capecitabine (category 1, per BILCAP) when resectable. For unresectable or metastatic disease, first-line systemic therapy is gemcitabine plus cisplatin combined with a PD-L1/PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor, either durvalumab (TOPAZ-1) or pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-966), both listed as category 1 preferred options by NCCN; comprehensive molecular/genomic profiling is recommended for all unresectable/metastatic candidates for systemic therapy to identify actionable targets (e.g., FGFR2 fusions, IDH1 mutations, HER2 amplification) for later-line therapy. Selected unresectable early-stage perihilar tumors may undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplant per the Mayo Clinic protocol at experienced centers, and jaundice or cholangitis is managed with biliary drainage (ERCP preferred over PTC).

NCCN Biliary Tract Cancers V2.2025 (V1.2026 in circulation) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance on PSC and Cholangiocarcinoma · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Liguori C … Parisi A · Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Pancreas/Biliary retrospective · n=1,250 · Aug 3, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Solid pancreatic lesions in young patients (<40 years): Should we be worried about? Lessons from 4 years of EUS guided FNB in a tertiary center.

New evidencepancreatic cancerEUS
Clinical takeawayIn young patients (<40) with SPLs, perform EUS-guided FNB to rule out PDAC, especially if hypovascular lesions, MPD dilation, or CBD dilation are present. NET (44.6%) and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (24.6%) were more common diagnoses in this cohort.
What it foundIn patients under 40 with solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), 12.3% had pancreatic cancer (PDAC) vs 55.9% in older patients (p < 0.001); hypovascular pattern, MPD dilation, or CBD dilation were associated with increased PDAC likelihood (specific magnitude not stated in abstract).
ContextChallenges the assumption that SPLs in young patients are rarely malignant; confirms hypovascular pattern and duct dilation as high-risk features across ages.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457.

Decision at stakethe use of EUS-guided FNB for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions

Integrate supportive care throughout: relieve obstructive jaundice with an endoscopic self-expanding metal stent in non-operative or neoadjuvant pathways, but do NOT perform routine preoperative biliary drainage before planned upfront resection; treat exocrine insufficiency with pancreatic enzyme replacement titrated to symptoms (common starting dose ~40,000-50,000 units of lipase with main meals, roughly half with snacks, increased as needed); manage refractory pain with celiac plexus neurolysis or palliative RT; relieve gastric outlet obstruction with surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (or enteral stenting); and provide VTE prophylaxis, nutritional support, and early palliative care.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Evaluate suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a dedicated pancreatic-protocol (multiphasic, contrast-enhanced) CT of the abdomen as the preferred imaging for diagnosis and staging (MRI/MRCP is an acceptable alternative); PET/CT may be added after, never as a substitute for, protocol CT/MRI in higher-risk situations. Obtain tissue confirmation, preferably by EUS-guided FNA/FNB with core biopsy where feasible; biopsy is generally required before neoadjuvant or palliative therapy, whereas patients with clearly resectable disease may proceed to surgery without preoperative biopsy. Measure baseline CA 19-9 (interpret after biliary decompression / with normal bilirubin; it can be falsely low in Lewis-antigen-negative patients and falsely elevated with cholestasis). Offer GERMLINE testing for inherited susceptibility to EVERY patient with confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma regardless of family history, using a comprehensive multi-gene panel; separately, for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are candidates for anti-cancer therapy, obtain TUMOR/SOMATIC molecular profiling (broad NGS; RNA-based assays improve fusion detection; cell-free/liquid biopsy if tissue is insufficient). Assign resectability, resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced (unresectable), or metastatic, by multidisciplinary review, ideally at a high-volume center. RESECTABLE disease: upfront resection (pancreaticoduodenectomy for head/uncinate; distal pancreatectomy ± splenectomy for body/tail) followed by adjuvant therapy, or neoadjuvant therapy in selected high-risk patients; preferred adjuvant regimen is modified FOLFIRINOX in patients able to tolerate it, ideally begun within 12 weeks of surgery, for a total of ~6 months of perioperative systemic therapy. BORDERLINE RESECTABLE and LOCALLY ADVANCED disease: neoadjuvant systemic therapy, with or without subsequent chemoradiation/RT, then restaging and reassessment for resection. METASTATIC disease by performance status: good PS (ECOG 0-1, adequate organ function), first-line FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, with clinical trial preferred; after ~4-6 months without progression, transition to a maintenance strategy (including olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 carriers who have NOT progressed on first-line platinum-based therapy), a clinical trial, or a treatment break; intermediate PS (ECOG 2), clinical trial preferred, otherwise less-intensive first-line therapy (preferred gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel [category 1], or single-agent gemcitabine or capecitabine, or FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CapeOx), since the intensive triplets (FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX) are limited to ECOG 0-1 and are generally not appropriate at ECOG 2, with the same maintenance-versus-progression reassessment applied after ~4-6 months without progression; poor PS (ECOG 3-4), palliative/best supportive care, with single-agent chemotherapy or a biomarker-directed agent only if clinically appropriate. Treat by molecular target wherever an actionable alteration is present, across lines: pembrolizumab (or dostarlimab) for MSI-H/dMMR and pembrolizumab for TMB-H, olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 (maintenance after platinum), larotrectinib/entrectinib for NTRK fusions, selpercatinib for RET fusions, dabrafenib + trametinib for BRAF V600E, erdafitinib for FGFR2 alterations, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan for HER2-positive disease, zenocutuzumab for NRG1 fusion-positive disease, and (in recent NCCN versions) KRAS G12C inhibitors (adagrasib/sotorasib), several of these after prior systemic therapy. Integrate supportive care throughout: relieve obstructive jaundice with an endoscopic self-expanding metal stent in non-operative or neoadjuvant pathways, but do NOT perform routine preoperative biliary drainage before planned upfront resection; treat exocrine insufficiency with pancreatic enzyme replacement titrated to symptoms (common starting dose ~40,000-50,000 units of lipase with main meals, roughly half with snacks, increased as needed); manage refractory pain with celiac plexus neurolysis or palliative RT; relieve gastric outlet obstruction with surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (or enteral stenting); and provide VTE prophylaxis, nutritional support, and early palliative care.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
de Pretis N … Frulloni L · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Pancreas/Biliary review · Jul 29, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

From guidelines to precision care: How contemporary evidence is transforming IPMN management.

Guideline / reviewIPMNpancreatic cancerguidelinecost-effectiveness
Clinical takeawayConsider personalized IPMN management based on subtype (main-duct/mixed vs. branch-duct), cyst stability, growth rate, age, and overall health. Avoid unnecessary surveillance for low-risk branch-duct IPMNs.
What it foundRecent evidence refines IPMN risk stratification, with main-duct or mixed-type lesions having higher risk of high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer, while small branch-duct lesions often remain stable.
ContextUpdates prior guidelines by incorporating long-term natural history data and personalized risk models, moving beyond one-size-fits-all surveillance.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457.

Decision at stakemanagement of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) as precursors to pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Evaluate suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a dedicated pancreatic-protocol (multiphasic, contrast-enhanced) CT of the abdomen as the preferred imaging for diagnosis and staging (MRI/MRCP is an acceptable alternative); PET/CT may be added after, never as a substitute for, protocol CT/MRI in higher-risk situations.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Evaluate suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a dedicated pancreatic-protocol (multiphasic, contrast-enhanced) CT of the abdomen as the preferred imaging for diagnosis and staging (MRI/MRCP is an acceptable alternative); PET/CT may be added after, never as a substitute for, protocol CT/MRI in higher-risk situations. Obtain tissue confirmation, preferably by EUS-guided FNA/FNB with core biopsy where feasible; biopsy is generally required before neoadjuvant or palliative therapy, whereas patients with clearly resectable disease may proceed to surgery without preoperative biopsy. Measure baseline CA 19-9 (interpret after biliary decompression / with normal bilirubin; it can be falsely low in Lewis-antigen-negative patients and falsely elevated with cholestasis). Offer GERMLINE testing for inherited susceptibility to EVERY patient with confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma regardless of family history, using a comprehensive multi-gene panel; separately, for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are candidates for anti-cancer therapy, obtain TUMOR/SOMATIC molecular profiling (broad NGS; RNA-based assays improve fusion detection; cell-free/liquid biopsy if tissue is insufficient). Assign resectability, resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced (unresectable), or metastatic, by multidisciplinary review, ideally at a high-volume center. RESECTABLE disease: upfront resection (pancreaticoduodenectomy for head/uncinate; distal pancreatectomy ± splenectomy for body/tail) followed by adjuvant therapy, or neoadjuvant therapy in selected high-risk patients; preferred adjuvant regimen is modified FOLFIRINOX in patients able to tolerate it, ideally begun within 12 weeks of surgery, for a total of ~6 months of perioperative systemic therapy. BORDERLINE RESECTABLE and LOCALLY ADVANCED disease: neoadjuvant systemic therapy, with or without subsequent chemoradiation/RT, then restaging and reassessment for resection. METASTATIC disease by performance status: good PS (ECOG 0-1, adequate organ function), first-line FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, with clinical trial preferred; after ~4-6 months without progression, transition to a maintenance strategy (including olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 carriers who have NOT progressed on first-line platinum-based therapy), a clinical trial, or a treatment break; intermediate PS (ECOG 2), clinical trial preferred, otherwise less-intensive first-line therapy (preferred gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel [category 1], or single-agent gemcitabine or capecitabine, or FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CapeOx), since the intensive triplets (FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX) are limited to ECOG 0-1 and are generally not appropriate at ECOG 2, with the same maintenance-versus-progression reassessment applied after ~4-6 months without progression; poor PS (ECOG 3-4), palliative/best supportive care, with single-agent chemotherapy or a biomarker-directed agent only if clinically appropriate. Treat by molecular target wherever an actionable alteration is present, across lines: pembrolizumab (or dostarlimab) for MSI-H/dMMR and pembrolizumab for TMB-H, olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 (maintenance after platinum), larotrectinib/entrectinib for NTRK fusions, selpercatinib for RET fusions, dabrafenib + trametinib for BRAF V600E, erdafitinib for FGFR2 alterations, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan for HER2-positive disease, zenocutuzumab for NRG1 fusion-positive disease, and (in recent NCCN versions) KRAS G12C inhibitors (adagrasib/sotorasib), several of these after prior systemic therapy. Integrate supportive care throughout: relieve obstructive jaundice with an endoscopic self-expanding metal stent in non-operative or neoadjuvant pathways, but do NOT perform routine preoperative biliary drainage before planned upfront resection; treat exocrine insufficiency with pancreatic enzyme replacement titrated to symptoms (common starting dose ~40,000-50,000 units of lipase with main meals, roughly half with snacks, increased as needed); manage refractory pain with celiac plexus neurolysis or palliative RT; relieve gastric outlet obstruction with surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (or enteral stenting); and provide VTE prophylaxis, nutritional support, and early palliative care.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ricci C … Crippa S · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Colorectal· 1

Colorectal review · Jul 31, 2026 · Nat Rev Gastro Hep · IF 57.5

Mechanisms, management and prevention of anorectal sexually transmitted infections.

New evidenceepidemiologyartificial intelligencebiomarkerbasic science
Clinical takeawayConsider routine anorectal STI screening in MSM, even if asymptomatic, given high prevalence and silent persistence. For prevention, discuss doxycycline PEP (reduces chlamydia/syphilis incidence) where appropriate, acknowledging practical implementation challenges in diverse clinical settings.
What it foundAnorectal STIs (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis) are often asymptomatic, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM), with prevalence exceeding urogenital infections.
ContextConfirms the need for proactive screening in high-risk groups, despite existing molecular diagnostics, due to asymptomatic carriage and rising incidence globally.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· CDC (Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al.), Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021, Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis; MMWR Recommendations and Reports 2021;70(RR-4):1-187

Decision at stakeempiric treatment for acute proctitis in patients with receptive anal exposure

Give empiric ceftriaxone 500 mg IM once plus doxycycline 100 mg BID for 7 days presumptively while awaiting results, started whenever the presentation is consistent with acute proctitis (anorectal exudate on exam or polymorphonuclear leukocytes on a Gram-stained anorectal smear, or, if anoscopy/Gram stain is unavailable, in a patient reporting receptive anal exposure) rather than only once symptoms are "moderate-severe", then tailor therapy by pathogen (extend doxycycline to the full 21-day course presumptively for LGV when bloody discharge, perianal or mucosal ulcers, or tenesmus accompany a positive rectal chlamydia NAAT, rather than waiting for confirmed LGV; penicillin G benzathine for syphilis, antivirals for HSV).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

In a patient with proctitis symptoms and receptive anal sex history, test with rectal NAAT for gonorrhea and chlamydia (LGV testing if positive), syphilis serology, HSV PCR from ulcers, stool studies for enteric pathogens in proctocolitis, plus HIV and hepatitis testing. Give empiric ceftriaxone 500 mg IM once plus doxycycline 100 mg BID for 7 days presumptively while awaiting results, started whenever the presentation is consistent with acute proctitis (anorectal exudate on exam or polymorphonuclear leukocytes on a Gram-stained anorectal smear, or, if anoscopy/Gram stain is unavailable, in a patient reporting receptive anal exposure) rather than only once symptoms are "moderate-severe", then tailor therapy by pathogen (extend doxycycline to the full 21-day course presumptively for LGV when bloody discharge, perianal or mucosal ulcers, or tenesmus accompany a positive rectal chlamydia NAAT, rather than waiting for confirmed LGV; penicillin G benzathine for syphilis, antivirals for HSV). Include partner notification and treatment, sexual health counseling, and repeat STI testing at 3 months.

CDC (Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al.), Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021, Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis; MMWR Recommendations and Reports 2021;70(RR-4):1-187 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Latt PM … Chow EPF · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 57.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Everything else this week85 that cleared the bar

Ranked below the cards above, not excluded: these met the bar and were read and scored the same way. One line each, grouped by subspecialty, highest signal first; click through for the paper.

IBD· 17

Hepatology· 25

Endoscopy· 15

Also screened this week92 papers read, not selected

These cleared the journal filter and were read, but were not selected this week. A score means the paper was weighed: below 35 it fell short of the bar; at 35 or above, a check after scoring set it aside. A blank means it was set aside before scoring. Listed for anyone going deeper; no takeaway attached, because none was written. How we choose →

IBD· 12

Hepatology· 20

Endoscopy· 25

Colorectal· 12

How we choose

the same pipeline every week
01

Scan

Every new paper across 48 vetted GI, hepatology, and general-medicine journals.

02

Screen

Drop what is not a study: letters, editorials, corrections, case reports. Classify the rest.

03

Anchor

Compare each paper to the guideline standard it touches, and record how far it moves it.

04

Verify

An adversarial second pass checks every claim against its cited source.

05

Vet

Each issue is reviewed by a physician editor before it publishes.