A SiftingSignal publication/ Edited by Simon Mathews, MD

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

Every week, 100+ papers from 25+ top GI and medical journals, transparently scored and physician-vetted. The signal, not the noise.

This week, in numbers

Issue №12 · week of Sep 20, 2026See the trends →
Top journals this week: NEJM / Nat Rev Gastro Hep / Nature Medicine / Lancet GH
Selectivity
13.2%
18 in the issue of 136 screened
in the issue 18in depth 34held 10filtered out 74
86.8% of what published this week did not make the issue. That filter is the product. A further 34 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 18 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 standardretrospectivemeta-analysis →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

limit gastric myotomy to <3 cm in POEM to halve reflux esophagitis risk, extend first surveillance colonoscopy to 5 years in high-risk adenoma patients, and non-enteric PERT does not relieve pain in chronic pancreatitis.

The 18 in the issue this week, ranked by signal score. Each anchored to the relevant standard of care. All in full below; 34 more, read and scored the same way, in one line each at the foot of the issue.

Your subspecialty, the takeaways
IBD6Hepatology18Esophagus/Reflux3Pancreas/Biliary6Endoscopy13Motility1Colorectal3Nutrition2
Type

This week to know

the 6 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
Endoscopy rct · n=100 · Sep 18, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Impact of gastric length of myotomy during POEM on the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux: A randomized controlled trial.

Practice-changingGERDachalasiaproton pump inhibitors
Clinical takeawayPrefer short gastric myotomy (<3 cm) during POEM for type I/II achalasia to reduce post-procedure reflux esophagitis, without compromising symptom relief or clinical efficacy.
What it foundShort gastric myotomy (<3 cm) cut LA grade B+ esophagitis to 24% vs 44% with long myotomy (≥3 cm) at 6 months post-POEM (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.04-5.79).
ContextChallenges the assumption that longer gastric myotomy improves outcomes, showing it increases reflux esophagitis without added benefit.
Refinessuggested 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 optimal gastric myotomy length during POEM to minimize post-procedure GERD

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.

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 ↗
Nabi Z … Reddy DN · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal rct · n=10,799 · Sep 17, 2026 · NEJM · IF 84.5

Colonoscopy Intervals and Colorectal Cancer Incidence after Adenoma Removal.

Practice-changingcolorectal cancercolorectal cancer screeningadenoma
Clinical takeawayConsider extending the first surveillance colonoscopy interval to 5 years (vs 3 years) for patients with high-risk adenomas (≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous growth, or 3-10 adenomas), pending final 10-year results.
What it found5-year cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer was 0.77% with 5-year surveillance vs 0.82% with 3-year surveillance (difference -0.05 percentage points; noninferiority margin 0.7 percentage points).
ContextChallenges current guideline recommendations for 3-year surveillance in high-risk adenoma patients, suggesting noninferiority of a 5-year interval in this interim analysis.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed.

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

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed. Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps. Refer for genetic evaluation when Lynch, FAP/AFAP/MAP, or serrated polyposis syndrome criteria are met.

US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Jover R … EPoS Study Group · New England Journal of Medicine · IF 84.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Pancreas/Biliary rct · n=107 · Sep 16, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Impact of non-enteric-coated pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (NEPERT) on pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis: a double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

New evidencechronic pancreatitis
Clinical takeawayDo not prescribe non-enteric-coated PERT for pain control in chronic pancreatitis.
What it foundNEPERT did not improve pain in chronic pancreatitis vs placebo (Izbicki score difference -2.5, 95% CI -9.3 to 4.2 at 12 weeks).
ContextChallenges prior assumptions about PERT's role in pain management for chronic pancreatitis, which lacked robust evidence.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Chronic Pancreatitis' (Gardner TB et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115(3):322-339). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000535, PMID 32022720.

Confirm chronic pancreatitis on CROSS-SECTIONAL IMAGING, CT for late calcific disease, MRI/MRCP (with secretin where available) for earlier ductal and parenchymal change, EUS an acceptable alternative; per ACG 2020, "Diagnosis is made usually on cross-sectional imaging, with modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography and pancreatic function tests playing a secondary role".

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

Confirm chronic pancreatitis on CROSS-SECTIONAL IMAGING, CT for late calcific disease, MRI/MRCP (with secretin where available) for earlier ductal and parenchymal change, EUS an acceptable alternative; per ACG 2020, "Diagnosis is made usually on cross-sectional imaging, with modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography and pancreatic function tests playing a secondary role". Fecal elastase does NOT confirm chronic pancreatitis: it is a test of exocrine FUNCTION and is the appropriate initial test for the exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) that chronic pancreatitis causes, a consequence of the disease, not the diagnosis of it. A normal fecal elastase does not exclude chronic pancreatitis and a low one does not establish it. Per AGA 2023, fecal elastase must be run on a semi-solid or solid stool specimen; below 100 mcg/g is good evidence of EPI and 100-200 mcg/g is indeterminate (below 200 mcg/g is the cutoff commonly used to screen). Then manage with smoking and alcohol cessation, PERT for exocrine insufficiency titrated to symptoms, fat-soluble vitamin and bone surveillance, and individualized type 3c diabetes control, considering insulin early in patients with marked hyperglycemia or symptoms of insulin deficiency. Treat pain with a stepwise ladder from scheduled acetaminophen and neuromodulators to EUS-guided celiac plexus block and endoscopic/surgical intervention, referring early for surgery per ESCAPE 2020 in candidates with main pancreatic duct obstruction. Screen for PDAC per lifetime risk and pursue etiologic workup via TIGAR-O v2, including genetic testing and autoimmune pancreatitis evaluation.

American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Chronic Pancreatitis' (Gardner TB et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115(3):322-339). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000535, PMID 32022720. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Talukdar R … Reddy ND · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=124 · Sep 17, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

EUS-Guided Cyanoacrylate Injection With Balloon-Compression Sclerotherapy Versus Band Ligation for Gastroesophageal Varices: A Randomized Trial.

New evidencevariceal bleedingendoscopy qualityEUS
Clinical takeawayConsider EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection combined with balloon-compression sclerotherapy (EUS-CYA + bc-EIS) over EUS-CYA + EVL for cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices, as it improves eradication and reduces treatment sessions, though the rebleeding difference was not statistically significant.
What it foundEUS-CYA + bc-EIS achieved 100% esophageal variceal eradication vs. 82.3% with EUS-CYA + EVL, with fewer sessions (1.4 vs. 2.1) and lower rebleeding (9.7% vs. 21.0%, p=0.081).
ContextRefines current practice: EUS-CYA + bc-EIS outperforms EUS-CYA + EVL in esophageal variceal eradication and session efficiency, with comparable safety, in cirrhotic patients with GOV.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· AASLD, 'Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis', Hepatology 2024 (PMID 37870298), the governing document for acute variceal hemorrhage. Baveno VII (J Hepatol 2022, PMID 35120736) is the consensus it operationalises. The prior citation, ACG 'Disorders of the Hepatic and Mesenteric Circulation' (2020), covers Budd-Chiari, portal vein thrombosis and mesenteric ischemia and does NOT address variceal bleeding, a mis-anchor, not a stale edition.

Decision at stakethe optimal endoscopic approach for concomitant esophageal varices during EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices

Perform upper endoscopy within 12 hours of presentation once resuscitated, or as soon as safely possible if the patient is unstable, with band ligation for esophageal varices and for GOV1 (which is treated as an esophageal varix); cardiofundal varices (GOV2 and IGV1) are treated with cyanoacrylate injection, with EUS-guided coil placement with or without cyanoacrylate increasingly used as first-line where expertise exists, and TIPS or BRTO as alternatives or salvage.

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 acute variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis, resuscitate conservatively with a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy targeting hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL, start a vasoactive agent as soon as bleeding is suspected and before endoscopy (terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide; octreotide is the agent available for this indication in US practice) and continue it 2-5 days, and give empiric IV ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Perform upper endoscopy within 12 hours of presentation once resuscitated, or as soon as safely possible if the patient is unstable, with band ligation for esophageal varices and for GOV1 (which is treated as an esophageal varix); cardiofundal varices (GOV2 and IGV1) are treated with cyanoacrylate injection, with EUS-guided coil placement with or without cyanoacrylate increasingly used as first-line where expertise exists, and TIPS or BRTO as alternatives or salvage. PPIs started empirically should be stopped immediately after endoscopy unless there is a separate strict indication. Evaluate every patient at presentation for pre-emptive (early) TIPS with a PTFE-covered stent, placed within 72 hours and ideally within 24 hours, in high-risk patients defined as Child-Pugh class C with score under 14 (that is, 10-13) or Child-Pugh class B with score above 7 who have active bleeding at initial endoscopy despite vasoactive drugs; the decision is individualized and multidisciplinary, weighing age, frailty, comorbidity, heart failure, HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and transplant candidacy. For uncontrolled bleeding, a self-expanding covered esophageal metal stent is as effective as balloon tamponade and is the safer option; both are a bridge to definitive therapy (PTFE-covered TIPS) and neither is definitive therapy. Balloon tamponade must NOT be left in place for more than 24 hours, 24 hours is the ceiling, not a range: Baveno VI states it "should only be used in refractory oesophageal bleeding, as a temporary bridge (for a maximum of 24 h) with intensive care monitoring and considering intubation, until definitive treatment can be instituted", because severe esophageal injury/necrosis, perforation and aspiration rise sharply beyond that point. The 72-hour figure in this standard belongs to the pre-emptive TIPS window and must not be read as a permissible tamponade duration. Secondary prophylaxis is mandatory in all survivors and is combination therapy: a nonselective beta-blocker, either a traditional NSBB (propranolol or nadolol) or carvedilol, which Baveno VII endorses as an equivalent rather than clearly superior option in this specific indication, plus serial EVL every 2 to 8 weeks until variceal eradication, with surveillance endoscopy thereafter. TIPS is the treatment of choice for patients who rebleed despite NSBB plus EVL.

AASLD, 'Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis', Hepatology 2024 (PMID 37870298), the governing document for acute variceal hemorrhage. Baveno VII (J Hepatol 2022, PMID 35120736) is the consensus it operationalises. The prior citation, ACG 'Disorders of the Hepatic and Mesenteric Circulation' (2020), covers Budd-Chiari, portal vein thrombosis and mesenteric ischemia and does NOT address variceal bleeding, a mis-anchor, not a stale edition. · reviewed 2026-07-31 ↗
Yang X … Kong D · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,423 · Sep 15, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Patient-level predictors of safety and recurrence after cold versus hot snare resection of large, non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: an individual patient data meta-analysis of four randomised-controlled trials.

New evidencepolypectomyEMRmeta-analysiscolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayFor large non-pedunculated adenomas, prefer hot snare EMR over cold snare for lower recurrence, especially in high-grade dysplasia. Reserve cold snare for SSLs (2-4 cm) or high-risk patients (anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy, multimorbidity) where safety outweighs recurrence risk, noting that further studies are needed for these populations.
What it foundCold snare resection of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps had fewer major adverse events (1.7% vs 5.9%, OR 0.26) but higher residual/recurrent adenoma rates (26.5% vs 12.8%, OR 2.61), especially in high-grade dysplasia (40.8% vs 18.0%, OR 2.88).
ContextConfirms cold snare is safer but with higher recurrence than hot EMR, refining prior evidence by quantifying the trade-off and identifying high-grade dysplasia as a key subgroup for recurrence risk.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020

Decision at stakechoosing cold versus hot snare resection for large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed.

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

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed. Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps. Refer for genetic evaluation when Lynch, FAP/AFAP/MAP, or serrated polyposis syndrome criteria are met.

US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Steinbrück I … International Cold snare study group · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=1,010 · Sep 18, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Alcohol consumption increases risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients.

New evidencehepatocellular carcinomaviral hepatitisalcohol-associated liver diseaseepidemiology
Clinical takeawayCounsel CHB patients, regardless of cirrhosis status, to abstain from alcohol or reduce intake to <140/210 g/week to lower HCC risk, especially in those with high alcohol consumption (>350/420 g/week), which quadruples HCC risk (aHR 4.00, P<0.001).
What it foundEach 100 g/week increase in alcohol intake raised HCC risk by 33% (aHR 1.33, P<0.001), and high alcohol intake (>350/420 g/week) quadrupled HCC risk (aHR 4.00, P<0.001) in CHB patients.
ContextConfirms and quantifies the synergistic risk of alcohol and CHB for HCC, extending prior evidence by showing consistent risk across cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic subgroups.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Chen Y … Nan Y · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink

The read

the next 12, in full

IBD· 1

IBD prospective cohort · n=100 · Sep 18, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

Leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein as a predictor of primary non-response to anti-TNF-α therapy in biologic-naïve Egyptian IBD patients.

Diagnosticbiologicsanti-TNFbiomarkerCrohn's disease
Clinical takeawayConsider measuring baseline serum LRG in biologic-naïve Egyptian IBD patients to estimate moderate-risk (not definitive) of primary non-response to anti-TNF-α therapy. Patients with LRG >29 µg/mL may benefit from alternative therapeutic strategies.
What it foundBaseline serum LRG >29 µg/mL predicted primary non-response to anti-TNF-α therapy (adalimumab or infliximab) vs response, with sensitivities of 74.2% (UC) and 80.0% (CD) and specificities of 69.57% (UC) and 65.71% (CD) in biologic-naïve Egyptian IBD patients.
ContextThis study introduces LRG as a predictive biomarker with moderate discriminatory ability for anti-TNF-α response in Egyptian patients, addressing a gap in current practice where primary non-response remains a significant challenge.
Refinessuggested 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 stakepredicting primary non-response to anti-TNF therapy in ulcerative colitis

Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Do not cycle within the anti-TNF class after primary non-response; switch mechanism.

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

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) ↗
Amer I … El Sharawy S · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Hepatology· 4

Hepatology rct · n=230 · Sep 16, 2026 · Hepatology · IF 18.0

Lactulose with or without TeleTai-Chi for the prevention of falls: A sequential multiple assignment randomized controlled trial (LiveSMART).

New evidencecirrhosisportal hypertensionhepatic encephalopathy
Clinical takeawayConsider lactulose for fall prevention in cirrhosis patients without overt HE, especially those at high fall risk. Sequential lactulose/TeleTai-Chi may offer additional benefit but requires further validation.
What it foundLactulose reduced injurious falls (4% vs 12%) and non-injurious falls (19% vs 32%) compared to enhanced usual care in cirrhosis patients without prior overt HE, with a win ratio of 2.3 (95% CI 1.3-4.0). Sequential lactulose/TeleTai-Chi further reduced the primary outcome compared to enhanced usual care (win ratio 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-5.5).
ContextCurrent practice lacks specific fall prevention strategies in cirrhosis patients without prior overt HE. This trial provides the first evidence for lactulose's role in reducing falls, independent of HE prevention.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), "EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatic encephalopathy," 2022

Decision at stakethe use of lactulose in patients with cirrhosis without prior overt hepatic encephalopathy

In adults with cirrhosis, diagnose hepatic encephalopathy (HE) clinically: an alteration in mental status graded by the West Haven criteria (minimal + grade 1 = covert; grades 2-4 = overt, e.g. disorientation, asterixis, somnolence to coma) in a patient with liver disease/portosystemic shunting, made only after excluding other causes of altered mentation (structural, infectious, metabolic, toxic).

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 adults with cirrhosis, diagnose hepatic encephalopathy (HE) clinically: an alteration in mental status graded by the West Haven criteria (minimal + grade 1 = covert; grades 2-4 = overt, e.g. disorientation, asterixis, somnolence to coma) in a patient with liver disease/portosystemic shunting, made only after excluding other causes of altered mentation (structural, infectious, metabolic, toxic). Use the operational classification (type, time course [episodic/recurrent/persistent], and precipitated vs spontaneous). Measure blood ammonia primarily as a RULE-OUT test: a NORMAL ammonia level questions the diagnosis of HE (high negative predictive value), but ammonia does NOT add diagnostic, staging or prognostic value in a patient with known HE and should not be used to grade HE or to titrate therapy; sample and handle it correctly (prompt, on ice). In every patient with overt HE, actively search for and treat a precipitating factor, infection, GI bleeding, dehydration/diuretic overuse, electrolyte disturbance, constipation, sedatives/psychoactive drugs. Treat an episode of overt HE with a non-absorbable disaccharide (lactulose) titrated to 2-3 soft bowel movements per day (oral, or by enema in grade 3-4 to avoid aspiration); polyethylene glycol may be substituted for a lactulose enema in patients with persistent constipation, sub-ileus, or intolerance to lactulose, and although small single-centre trials suggest more rapid resolution of HE, the evidence is limited and whether it should replace or be combined with lactulose is unclear, so it is not an established faster-acting alternative or adjunct. After a first episode of overt HE, give lactulose as secondary prophylaxis (titrated to 2-3 BM/day); add rifaximin 550 mg twice daily as an ADJUNCT to lactulose only after >=1 further episode of overt HE occurs within 6 months of the first (or continue rifaximin already in use). Do not restrict dietary protein: target the general cirrhosis nutrition goals (protein 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day, energy ~35 kcal/kg/day) with meals distributed across the day and a late-evening snack; in recurrent/persistent HE, substitution of animal protein with vegetable and dairy protein can be considered provided total protein intake is not compromised. For HE refractory to lactulose + rifaximin, reconsider the diagnosis and re-search for a missed precipitant or a large spontaneous portosystemic shunt; obliteration of an accessible portosystemic shunt can be considered in stable patients with preserved liver function (MELD <11), and post-TIPS HE refractory to medical therapy may warrant TIPS reduction/occlusion. Evaluate for liver transplantation in eligible patients, refer for transplant assessment in patients with recurrent/persistent HE (and hepatic myelopathy as soon as possible), recognizing that a first episode of overt HE already carries a poor prognosis.

European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), "EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatic encephalopathy," 2022 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Tapper EB … Serper M · Hepatology · IF 18.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=951 · Sep 18, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

High rates of transition to immune active disease in a cohort of strictly defined immune tolerant patients with chronic hepatitis B: results from the RADICAL consortium.

New evidenceviral hepatitisepidemiologybiomarkertranslational
Clinical takeawayConsider more frequent monitoring for immune-tolerant CHB patients, particularly those with high-normal ALT (20-40 U/L), given their elevated risk of transitioning to immune-active disease. Pre-emptive therapy is not currently supported by SOC.
What it found51%, 67%, and 72% of immune-tolerant CHB patients transitioned to immune-active disease within 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively, with higher risk in those with high-normal ALT (sHR: 20-30 U/L: 1.744, sHR: >30 U/L: 3.130). The risk of progression to significant fibrosis was 6.3% and HCC was 1.1% at 15 years.
ContextChallenges the benign view of the immune-tolerant phase in CHB, showing high rates of transition to immune-active disease, especially in patients with high-normal ALT, but with low risk of fibrosis and HCC.
Refinessuggested 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 stakewhether to treat immune-tolerant patients with chronic hepatitis B

(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).

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

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 ↗
van Velsen LM … RADICAL consortium · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology retrospective · n=2,395 · Sep 16, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Risk Factors and Definition of Younger-Onset Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) Cirrhosis.

New evidencecirrhosisMASLDepidemiology
Clinical takeawayIn MASLD patients under 50 with T2DM or BMI ≥35kg/m2, consider heightened surveillance for cirrhosis given their higher genetic risk (PNPLA3, TM6SF2, HSD17B13 alleles) and metabolic burden, per standard diabetes and MASLD management.
What it found25% of MASLD cirrhosis cases present before age 50, associated with high genetic risk score (OR 2.33, dichotomized at median) and T2DM (OR 3.74).
ContextRefines understanding of MASLD cirrhosis risk beyond age, highlighting a high-risk younger subgroup (<50 years) with distinct genetic and metabolic drivers.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, "6. Glycemic Goals, Hypoglycemia, and Hyperglycemic Crises: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026," Diabetes Care 2026;49(Supplement_1):S132-S149

Decision at stakescreening all T2DM for MASLD with FIB-4

Manage diabetes in GI/hepatology patients by individualizing the A1c target to the population, in cirrhosis, A1c is unreliable because altered red blood cell turnover typically underestimates glycemia, so set glycemic goals using blood glucose monitoring and/or CGM rather than a fixed A1c cutoff, and in diabetic gastroparesis individualize the target rather than applying a universal cutoff; ≤7% pre-bariatric, <6.5% pre-conception, while screening all T2DM for MASLD with FIB-4, screening T1DM for concurrent celiac disease, and screening for diabetic gastroparesis when chronic nausea, early satiety, or postprandial fullness are present.

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

Manage diabetes in GI/hepatology patients by individualizing the A1c target to the population, in cirrhosis, A1c is unreliable because altered red blood cell turnover typically underestimates glycemia, so set glycemic goals using blood glucose monitoring and/or CGM rather than a fixed A1c cutoff, and in diabetic gastroparesis individualize the target rather than applying a universal cutoff; ≤7% pre-bariatric, <6.5% pre-conception, while screening all T2DM for MASLD with FIB-4, screening T1DM for concurrent celiac disease, and screening for diabetic gastroparesis when chronic nausea, early satiety, or postprandial fullness are present. Evaluate new-onset DM after age 50 without obesity for a pancreatic cancer differential, and coordinate peri-procedural medication holds and multidisciplinary endocrinology involvement.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, "6. Glycemic Goals, Hypoglycemia, and Hyperglycemic Crises: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026," Diabetes Care 2026;49(Supplement_1):S132-S149 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ajmera V … Loomba R · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology retrospective · n=247 · Sep 17, 2026 · Eur J Gastro Hep · IF 2.2

Rapid ammonia normalization and long-term efficacy of rifaximin in patients with cirrhosis: a multicenter retrospective study.

New evidencecirrhosishepatic encephalopathybiomarkerepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider rifaximin for hyperammonemia in cirrhosis, especially in patients with lower baseline albumin who may experience delayed normalization. Monitor for rare (2.0%) mild adverse events.
What it foundRifaximin reduced blood ammonia by 34.7% at 1 week, with 74.5% achieving normalization by median 63 days, and cut hepatic encephalopathy hospitalizations by 60.2% compared with the preceding 2 years.
ContextConfirms rifaximin's rapid ammonia-lowering effect and adds long-term data on hepatic function markers and hospitalization reduction, supporting its role beyond acute encephalopathy. Mild adverse events occurred in 2.0% of patients.
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 stakethe use of rifaximin for hyperammonemia in cirrhosis

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 ↗
Tani J … Kobara H · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 2.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Esophagus/Reflux· 1

Esophagus/Reflux prospective cohort · n=408 · Sep 18, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Isolated laryngopharyngeal symptoms do not predict objective reflux evidence: an international multicenter validation study of the san diego consensus pathway for selective upfront testing.

New evidenceGERDepidemiologyhealth services
Clinical takeawayDo not rely on isolated LPS alone to predict LPRD; consider selective upfront testing based on the San Diego Consensus recommendations in patients with LPS and typical reflux symptoms.
What it foundIsolated laryngopharyngeal symptoms (LPS) had a 17.0% yield for objective GERD evidence vs 29.7% in LPS with typical reflux symptoms (p=0.006) in adults presenting for esophageal testing at tertiary centers.
ContextConfirms the San Diego Consensus pathway: isolated LPS lacks predictive value for LPRD, unlike LPS with typical reflux symptoms. The specifics of the San Diego Consensus recommendations are detailed in the source.
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 decision to perform reflux testing before starting PPI therapy for extraesophageal symptoms without typical GERD symptoms

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).

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 ↗
Chan WW … Gyawali CP · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Pancreas/Biliary· 1

Pancreas/Biliary prospective cohort · n=1,785 · Sep 16, 2026 · Nature Medicine · IF 52.5

Liquid biopsy for early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Diagnosticbiomarkerpancreatic cancerartificial intelligence
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: a promising biomarker for early PDAC detection requires validation in large-scale prospective studies.
What it foundA blood-based miRNA assay combined with CA19-9 (PANXEON) achieved 86.8% sensitivity for stage I-II PDAC, with false-positive rates of 3.2% in low-risk controls and 15.6% in high-risk controls.
ContextThis study introduces a novel composite biomarker for early PDAC detection, addressing a critical unmet need in a disease with poor outcomes when diagnosed late. It complements existing strategies but is not yet ready for clinical use.
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 stakethe detection of early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

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).

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 ↗
Xu C … Goel A · Nature Medicine · IF 52.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Endoscopy· 5

Endoscopy meta analysis · n=6,568 · Sep 18, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Endoscopic Artificial Intelligence for Invasion-Depth Prediction in Superficial Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecomputer-aided detectionESDmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider AI as a second-reader tool for invasion-depth prediction in superficial upper GI cancers, but independent patient-level external validation is essential before clinical deployment due to validation-dependence.
What it foundAI for invasion-depth prediction in superficial upper GI cancers had pooled sensitivity 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82) and specificity 0.88 (0.85-0.90), with higher sensitivity than unassisted endoscopists (82.5% vs. 63.8%; +18.7 percentage points; p = 0.013).
ContextThis meta-analysis confirms AI's potential to improve accuracy in predicting submucosal invasion, a critical step in ESD candidacy, but highlights validation-dependence and the need for further external validation.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025)

Decision at stakethe selection of candidates for endoscopic submucosal dissection in early esophageal cancer

PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative).

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. The rest of this standard includes WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1), BIOMARKERS, POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F) and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. BIOMARKERS: universal MSI (PCR/NGS) or MMR (IHC) testing AND universal PD-L1 testing in ALL newly diagnosed patients; HER2 and CLDN18.2 testing if advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma is documented or suspected; NGS should be considered. Multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended for stage I-IVA (locoregional) disease (ESOPH-E). ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY (ESOPH-A): the goal of endoscopic therapy (EMR, ESD, and/or ablation) is complete removal or eradication of early-stage disease, pTis, pT1a, and SELECTED superficial pT1b without LVI, plus the pre-neoplastic Barrett's segment. Tis/HGD must first be fully characterized for nodularity, lateral spread and multifocality, with EUS to rule out nodal metastases in select higher-risk cases. Areas of nodularity or ulceration must be RESECTED, not ablated. Completely flat lesions ≤2 cm (squamous HGD/Tis, and BE with flat HGD) should be treated by ER because it gives more accurate histologic assessment; flat lesions >2 cm can be treated by ER but with greater complication risk, and may be treated by ablation alone (data for ablation-alone in squamous HGD are very limited). Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion. Ablation of residual Barrett's should follow ER; complete BE eradication may also be achieved by widefield EMR or ESD at the initial intervention when needed to resect superficial tumor or nodularity ≤2 cm. For SCC, the level of evidence for ablation after ER is LOW; additional ablation may be needed only for multifocal HGD/CIS elsewhere, and may not be needed for completely excised lesions. Endoscopic therapy is 'PREFERRED' for limited early-stage disease: Tis and T1a, ≤2 cm, well or moderately differentiated. Esophagectomy is indicated for extensive carcinoma in situ (pTis/HGD), pT1a, or superficial pT1b, especially nodular disease not adequately controlled endoscopically. PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative). Consider neoadjuvant or perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor if the tumor is MSI-H/dMMR (in multidisciplinary consultation; the role of surgery after complete response is unclear). Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart. SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA (ESOPH-2): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy (non-cervical esophagus). cT2 N0 high-risk (LVI, ≥3 cm, poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION is preferred (or definitive chemoradiation). cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone for trachea/great-vessel/vertebral/cardiac invasion. NCCN states explicitly: 'Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred for esophageal SCC.' Preoperative RT dose 41.4-50.4 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/day (23-28 fractions); preferred concurrent regimens include weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 (CROSS, category 1) and fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (category 1). POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F): nivolumab is the preferred postoperative regimen ONLY after PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION with R0 resection and residual pathologic disease (category 1), 240 mg IV every 14 days for 16 weeks, then 480 mg IV every 28 days, maximum treatment duration 1 year. PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H): esophageal dilation with balloons or bougies for temporary relief of malignant or treatment-related obstruction (avoid overdilation, perforation risk); long-term dysphagia palliation by endoscopic tumor ablation (Nd:YAG laser, PDT, cryoablation) or expandable metal/plastic stents; feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy for anorexia/dysphagia/malnutrition, but placement of a GASTROSTOMY preoperatively may compromise the gastric vasculature and interfere with gastric-conduit reconstruction and SHOULD BE AVOIDED (feeding jejunostomy is generally preferred for postoperative nutritional support; multidisciplinary expertise is recommended before percutaneous gastrostomy).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Lee H … Kim TJ · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=385 · Sep 18, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Long-term Outcomes After Endoscopic Resection for pMM/SM1 Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

New evidenceesophageal cancerEMR
Clinical takeawayConsider surveillance without additional treatment for LVI-negative post-ER pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer, particularly for SCC lesions ≤30 mm with type 0-II appearance, which have a low metastatic recurrence rate of 2.9%. Monitor for second primary esophageal cancer, especially in SCC patients.
What it found5-year overall survival was 92.3% for SCC and 94.2% for EAC in post-ER pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer, with metastatic recurrence rates of 6.3% for pMM and 10.5% for pSM1 SCC. LVI-negative SCC lesions ≤30 mm with type 0-II appearance had a low metastatic recurrence rate of 2.9%. The 5-year cumulative incidence of second primary esophageal cancer was 25.8% for SCC and 3.6% for EAC.
ContextConfirms and refines prior evidence supporting surveillance for LVI-negative pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer, identifying low-risk SCC subgroups with minimal metastatic recurrence but highlighting the risk of second primary esophageal cancer.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025)

Decision at stakethe management of post-endoscopic resection pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer

Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion.

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. The rest of this standard includes WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1), BIOMARKERS, POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F) and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. BIOMARKERS: universal MSI (PCR/NGS) or MMR (IHC) testing AND universal PD-L1 testing in ALL newly diagnosed patients; HER2 and CLDN18.2 testing if advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma is documented or suspected; NGS should be considered. Multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended for stage I-IVA (locoregional) disease (ESOPH-E). ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY (ESOPH-A): the goal of endoscopic therapy (EMR, ESD, and/or ablation) is complete removal or eradication of early-stage disease, pTis, pT1a, and SELECTED superficial pT1b without LVI, plus the pre-neoplastic Barrett's segment. Tis/HGD must first be fully characterized for nodularity, lateral spread and multifocality, with EUS to rule out nodal metastases in select higher-risk cases. Areas of nodularity or ulceration must be RESECTED, not ablated. Completely flat lesions ≤2 cm (squamous HGD/Tis, and BE with flat HGD) should be treated by ER because it gives more accurate histologic assessment; flat lesions >2 cm can be treated by ER but with greater complication risk, and may be treated by ablation alone (data for ablation-alone in squamous HGD are very limited). Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion. Ablation of residual Barrett's should follow ER; complete BE eradication may also be achieved by widefield EMR or ESD at the initial intervention when needed to resect superficial tumor or nodularity ≤2 cm. For SCC, the level of evidence for ablation after ER is LOW; additional ablation may be needed only for multifocal HGD/CIS elsewhere, and may not be needed for completely excised lesions. Endoscopic therapy is 'PREFERRED' for limited early-stage disease: Tis and T1a, ≤2 cm, well or moderately differentiated. Esophagectomy is indicated for extensive carcinoma in situ (pTis/HGD), pT1a, or superficial pT1b, especially nodular disease not adequately controlled endoscopically. PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative). Consider neoadjuvant or perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor if the tumor is MSI-H/dMMR (in multidisciplinary consultation; the role of surgery after complete response is unclear). Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart. SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA (ESOPH-2): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy (non-cervical esophagus). cT2 N0 high-risk (LVI, ≥3 cm, poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION is preferred (or definitive chemoradiation). cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone for trachea/great-vessel/vertebral/cardiac invasion. NCCN states explicitly: 'Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred for esophageal SCC.' Preoperative RT dose 41.4-50.4 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/day (23-28 fractions); preferred concurrent regimens include weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 (CROSS, category 1) and fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (category 1). POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F): nivolumab is the preferred postoperative regimen ONLY after PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION with R0 resection and residual pathologic disease (category 1), 240 mg IV every 14 days for 16 weeks, then 480 mg IV every 28 days, maximum treatment duration 1 year. PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H): esophageal dilation with balloons or bougies for temporary relief of malignant or treatment-related obstruction (avoid overdilation, perforation risk); long-term dysphagia palliation by endoscopic tumor ablation (Nd:YAG laser, PDT, cryoablation) or expandable metal/plastic stents; feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy for anorexia/dysphagia/malnutrition, but placement of a GASTROSTOMY preoperatively may compromise the gastric vasculature and interfere with gastric-conduit reconstruction and SHOULD BE AVOIDED (feeding jejunostomy is generally preferred for postoperative nutritional support; multidisciplinary expertise is recommended before percutaneous gastrostomy).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ishihara R … Oyama T · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=679 · Sep 18, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Fatty Pancreas and the Association Between Pancreatic Manipulation Burden and Post-ERCP Pancreatitis.

New evidenceERCPacute pancreatitispancreatic cancerbiomarker
Clinical takeawayFurther research is needed to determine if pre-ERCP CT assessment for fatty pancreas and tailored procedural strategies can reduce pancreatitis risk in high-risk patients.
What it foundFatty pancreas (pancreas-to-spleen attenuation ratio <0.7) increased post-ERCP pancreatitis risk (adjusted OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.27-3.73), and pancreatic manipulation burden score had a stronger effect in fatty pancreas (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.52-2.84) vs non-fatty pancreas (adjusted OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.98-1.68).
ContextConfirms fatty pancreas as a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests it modifies the effect of pancreatic manipulation burden, refining prior evidence on procedural risk factors. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
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 ↗
Liu Y … Li X · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=170 · Sep 20, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Heparin Wet Suction Versus Conventional Suction in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Multicenter Randomized Crossover Study.

New evidenceEUSpancreatic cancerendoscopy qualitybiomarker
Clinical takeawayNo need to switch from conventional suction to heparin wet suction for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses: both techniques perform equally well.
What it foundDiagnostic yield was 82.9% with heparin wet suction (HWST) vs 83.5% with conventional suction (CST), a non-significant difference (95% CI -6.7 to 5.5). Combined yield after sequential sampling was 91.2%.
ContextHWST was proposed to improve tissue quality by reducing blood clots, but this trial found no advantage over standard suction in diagnostic yield, technical success, or IHC adequacy.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Chon HK … Lee SH · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=652 · Sep 15, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Risk Stratification Model for Surveillance Interval Extension After Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Non-Pedunculated Colon Polyps.

New evidencepolypectomyEMRcolorectal cancer screeningbiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider extending surveillance intervals beyond 6 months for hot EMR of LNPCPs ≥20mm when all four low-risk features are present (no prior resection, margin ablation done, no villous histology, no ICV involvement), pending prospective validation.
What it foundA 4-factor model (prior resection, no margin ablation, villous histology, ICV involvement) stratified recurrence risk after hot EMR: low-risk polyps had 2.2% recurrence at 6 months compared to 10.6% in high-risk polyps, 5.4% vs 23.1% at 12 months, and 9.7% vs 28.1% at 18 months.
ContextChallenges current uniform 6-month surveillance by identifying a low-risk subgroup with <10% recurrence at 18 months, though prospective validation is needed before guideline changes.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Garg K … Singh A · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Everything else this week34 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.

Hepatology· 13

Also screened this week32 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 →

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.