Purpose, use, and preparation of clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas

Apart from periampullary carcinoma, the prognosis of biliary tract carcinomas, including hilar cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic biliary tract carcinoma, and gallbladder carcinoma, remains poor. Sophisticated diagnostic skills and treatment methods and their application are naturally required to achieve better treatment results for biliary tract carcinomas. However, it is not too much to say that, due to the paucity of high-level evidence for the management of these carcinomas, medical care by healthcare providers in clinics and at medical institutes throughout the world is currently delivered without common consensus and common standards. The clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary carcinoma outlined here were produced with the aim that they could be used by physicians involved in the care of biliary tract carcinomas, as indicators that could help them provide their patients with the most appropriate care possible at this time. Also, the guidelines were prepared to provide measures that could assure patients with biliary tract carcinomas of safe medical care. The present guidelines are characterized by their clarification of clinical questions assumed to be often shared by healthcare professionals. For clarity, we divided the contents of the guidelines into eight areas. In each area, clinical questions are presented, together with recommendations of clinical actions in response to the question. As mentioned already, there is a paucity of high-level evidence in this area; therefore, the recommendations are classified into grades, of which there are five: A, strongly recommend performing the clinical action; B, recommend performing the clinical action; C1, the clinical action may be useful, although there is a lack of high-level scientific evidence; C2, clinical action not definitively recommended ecause of insufficient scientific evidence; D, recommend not performing the clinical action. The grading of the recommendations is based on the determination of the level of evidence in references on which the recommendation is based

New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis in revised Tokyo guidelines

Background: The Tokyo Guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis (TG07) were published in 2007 as the world's first guidelines for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. The diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis have since been widely used all over the world. A validation study of TG07 has shown that the diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis are highly reliable but that the definition of definite diagnosis is ambiguous. In addition, considerable new evidence referring to acute cholecystitis as well as evaluations of TG07 have been published. Consequently, we organized the Tokyo Guidelines Revision Committee to evaluate TG07, recognize new evidence, and conduct a multi-center analysis to revise the guidelines (TG13). Methods and materials: We retrospectively analyzed 451 patients with acute cholecystitis from multiple tertiary care centers in Japan. All 451 patients were first evaluated using the criteria in TG07. The "gold standard" for acute cholecystitis in this study was a diagnosis by pathology. The validity of TG07 diagnostic criteria was investigated by comparing clinical with pathological diagnosis. Results: Of 451 patients evaluated, a total of 227 patients were given a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis by pathological examination (prevalence 50.3 %). TG07 criteria provided a definite diagnosis of acute cholecystitis in 224 patients. The sensitivity of TG07 diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis was 92.1 %, and the specificity was 93.3 %. Based on the preliminary results, new diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis were proposed. Using the new criteria, the sensitivity of definite diagnosis was 91.2 %, and the specificity was 96.9 %. The accuracy rate was improved from 92.7 to 94.0 %. In regard to severity grading among 227 patients, 111 patients were classified as Mild (Grade I), 104 as Moderate (Grade II), and 12 as Severe (Grade III). Conclusion: The proposed new diagnostic criteria achieved better performance than the diagnostic criteria in TG07. Therefore, the proposed criteria have been adopted as new diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis and are referred to as the 2013 Tokyo Guidelines (TG13). Regarding severity assessment, no new evidence was found to suggest that the criteria in TG07 needed major adjustment. As a result, TG07 severity assessment criteria have been adopted in TG13 with minor changes. © 2012 The Author(s).link_to_subscribed_fulltex

New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholangitis in revised Tokyo guidelines

Background: The Tokyo Guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis were published in 2007 (TG07) and have been widely cited in the world literature. Because of new information that has been published since 2007, we organized the Tokyo Guidelines Revision Committee to conduct a multicenter analysis to develop the updated Tokyo Guidelines (TG13). Methods/materials : We retrospectively analyzed 1,432 biliary disease cases where acute cholangitis was suspected. The cases were collected from multiple tertiary care centers in Japan. The 'gold standard' for acute cholangitis in this study was that one of the three following conditions was present: (1) purulent bile was observed; (2) clinical remission following bile duct drainage; or (3) remission was achieved by antibacterial therapy alone, in patients in whom the only site of infection was the biliary tree. Comparisons were made for the validity of each diagnostic criterion among TG13, TG07 and Charcot's triad. Results: The major changes in diagnostic criteria of TG07 were re-arrangement of the diagnostic items and exclusion of abdominal pain from the diagnostic list. The sensitivity improved from 82.8 % (TG07) to 91.8 % (TG13). While the specificity was similar to TG07, the false positive rate in cases of acute cholecystitis was reduced from 15.5 to 5.9 %. The sensitivity of Charcot's triad was only 26.4 % but the specificity was 95.6 %. However, the false positive rate in cases of acute cholecystitis was 11.9 % and not negligible. As for severity grading, Grade II (moderate) acute cholangitis is defined as being associated with any two of the significant prognostic factors which were derived from evidence presented recently in the literature. The factors chosen allow severity assessment to be performed soon after diagnosis of acute cholangitis. Conclusion: TG13 present a new standard for the diagnosis, severity grading, and management of acute cholangitis. © 2012 The Author(s).link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Background: Tokyo Guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis

There are no evidence-based-criteria for the diagnosis, severity assessment, of treatment of acute cholecysitis or acute cholangitis. For example, the full complement of symptoms and signs described as Charcot’s triad and as Reynolds’ pentad are infrequent and as such do not really assist the clinician with planning management strategies. In view of these factors, we launched a project to prepare evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis that will be useful in the clinical setting. This research has been funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, in cooperation with the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Biliary Association, and the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. A working group, consisting of 46 experts in gastroenterology, surgery, internal medicine, emergency medicine, intensive care, and clinical epidemiology, analyzed and examined the literature on patients with cholangitis and cholecystitis in order to produce evidence-based guidelines. During the investigations we found that there was a lack of high-level evidence, for treatments, and the working group formulated the guidelines by obtaining consensus, based on evidence categorized by level, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence of May 2001 (version 1). This work required more than 20 meetings to obtain a consensus on each item from the working group. Then four forums were held to permit examination of the Guideline details in Japan, both by an external assessment committee and by the working group participants (version 2). As we knew that the diagnosis and management of acute biliary infection may differ from country to country, we appointed a publication committee and held 12 meetings to prepare draft Guidelines in English (version 3). We then had several discussions on these draft guidelines with leading experts in the field throughout the world, via e-mail, leading to version 4. Finally, an International Consensus Meeting took place in Tokyo, on 1–2 April, 2006, to obtain international agreement on diagnostic criteria, severity assessment, and management

Techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines

Biliary decompression and drainage done in a timely manner is the cornerstone of acute cholangitis treatment. The mortality rate of acute cholangitis was extremely high when no interventional procedures, other than open drainage, were available. At present, endoscopic drainage is the procedure of first choice, in view of its safety and effectiveness. In patients with severe (grade III) disease, defined according to the severity assessment criteria in the Guidelines, biliary drainage should be done promptly with respiration management, while patients with moderate (grade II) disease also need to undergo drainage promptly with close monitoring of their responses to the primary care. For endoscopic drainage, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or stent placement procedures are performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported no difference in the drainage effect of these two procedures, but case-series studies have indicated the frequent occurrence of hemorrhage associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and complications such as pancreatitis. Although the usefulness of percutaneous transhepatic drainage is supported by the case-series studies, its lower success rate and higher complication rates makes it a second-option procedure

Techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines

The principal management of acute cholecystitis is early cholecystectomy. However, percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) may be preferable for patients with moderate (grade II) or severe (grade III) acute cholecystitis. For patients with moderate (grade II) disease, PTGBD should be applied only when they do not respond to conservative treatment. For patients with severe (grade III) disease, PTGBD is recommended with intensive care. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration (PTGBA) is a simple alternative drainage method with fewer complications; however, its clinical usefulness has been shown only by case-series studies. To clarify the clinical value of these drainage methods, proper randomized trials should be done. This article describes techniques of drainage for acute cholecystitis

Stenting and interventional radiology for obstructive jaundice in patients with unresectable biliary tract carcinomas

Together with biliary drainage, which is an appropriate procedure for unresectable biliary cancer, biliary stent placement is used to improve symptoms associated with jaundice. Owing to investigations comparing percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), surgical drainage, and endoscopic drainage, many types of stents are now available that can be placed endoscopically. The stents used are classified roughly as plastic stents and metal stents. Compared with plastic stents, metal stents are of large diameter, and have long-term patency (although they are expensive). For this reason, the use of metal stents is preferred for patients who are expected to survive for more than 6 months, whereas for patients who are likely to survive for less than 6 months, the use of plastic stents is not considered to be improper. Obstruction in a metal stent is caused by a tumor that grows within the stent through the mesh interstices. To overcome such problems, a covered metal stent was developed, and these stents are now used in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. However, this type of stent has been reported to have several shortcomings, such as being associated with the development of acute cholecystitis and stent migration. In spite of these shortcomings, evidence is expected to demonstrate its superiority over other types of stent

Methods and timing of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines

Biliary drainage is a radical method to relieve cholestasis, a cause of acute cholangitis, and takes a central part in the treatment of acute cholangitis. Emergent drainage is essential for severe cases, whereas patients with moderate and mild disease should also receive drainage as soon as possible if they do not respond to conservative treatment, and their condition has not improved. Biliary drainage can be achieved via three different routes/procedures: endoscopic, percutaneous transhepatic, and open methods. The clinical value of both endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic drainage is well known. Endoscopic drainage is associated with a low morbidity rate and shorter duration of hospitalization; therefore, this approach is advocated whenever it is applicable. In endoscopic drainage, either endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or tube stent placement can be used. There is no significant difference in the success rate, effectiveness, and morbidity between the two procedures. The decision to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is made based on the patient’s condition and the number and diameter of common bile duct stones. Open drainage, on the other hand, should be applied only in patients for whom endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic drainage is contraindicated or has not been successfully performed. Cholecystectomy is recommended in patients with gallbladder stones, following the resolution of acute cholangitis with medical treatment, unless the patient has poor operative risk factors or declines surgery