← Issue №5/ week of Aug 2, 2026/Endoscopy

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

From GI Signals issue №5: what this paper found, what it changes, and where it sits against the current standard of care, reviewed by Simon Mathews, MD.

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
← Read the whole of issue №5 Every paper GI Signals surfaces gets a page like this one. All issues