4.3 Article

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers 2019: The 3rd English edition

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 26-54

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.870

Keywords

biliary tract cancer; clinical practice; guideline

Funding

  1. JSHPBS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery has launched the 3rd version of clinical practice guidelines for biliary tract cancers, covering 31 clinical questions on six topics. Recommendations were categorized as strong or weak, with three questions having no specific recommendation.
Background The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. Methods In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as Grade 1 (strong) or Grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (a) prophylactic treatment, (b) diagnosis, (c) biliary drainage, (d) surgical treatment, (e) chemotherapy, and (f) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. Conclusions This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available