Turkish Gastroenterology Association, Pancreas Study Group, Chronic Pancreatitis Committee Consensus Report.

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a progressive clinical picture that develops secondary to chronic inflammation of the pancreas. Endocrine and exocrine insufficiency occurs in the later stages of the disease as a result of fibrosis and atrophy of the pancreatic tissue. Its clinical course may differ from patient to patient. Abdominal pain is one of the most common symptoms in patients with CP, and it significantly affects the quality of life of patients. There may be no obvious clinical, laboratory, or imaging findings, especially in the early stage of the disease, and a difficulty may be experienced in its diagnosis. In the management of CP, diagnosis and treatment of the complications that occur during the course of the disease are of great im - portance, as well as abdominal pain and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. Therefore, the patient approach needs to be individualized. Even at present, there still ex- ist controversial points regarding the etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease. This guideline aims to guide the clinician and the research- er about the definition, etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, treat- ment, and follow-up of CP in light of the current literature. Shareholders (participants) A substudy group consisting of 24 experts was created from the Turkish Gastroenterology Association Pancre - as Study Group to prepare the CP consensus report. The group held its preliminary meeting for informative pur - poses in November 2018 and started meetings with the aim of creating a guideline in January 2019. Methodology The CP consensus report was created by following an evidence-based methodology that combined the expe - riences and opinions of the experts with the evidence obtained by systematic literature review to answer ques- tions related to the definition, etiology, diagnosis, treat - ment, monitorization, and prognosis of CP that were previously determined by gastroenterologists who are experts in CP (1). The level of scientific evidence was based on the ratings given by the Oxford Centre for Evi - dence-Based Medicine (2). As a first step in the preparation of the report, a study group consisting of physicians with expertise in CP was created. Using the Delphi method, the members of the study group S1 were asked to identify research questions on important topics related to the definition, etiology, diagnosis, treat- ment, monitoring, and prognosis of CP. Thereafter, these questions were combined and discussed in a 1-day face- to-face meeting, and the questions were finalized. In the same meeting, the questions were prepared for systematic literature review using the Patient–Intervention–Compar- ator–Outcome framework for each. As a result, a total of 56 questions were identified, eight of which were main questions with their subtitles. For each question, the key- words to be used in the literature review were determined. On the basis of the literature review, decisions were taken regarding which articles with which features would be an- alyzed, which evaluation criteria would be used during the analysis, and what method would be used to analyze. The members of the study group who were responsible for the systematic literature review received a training on systematic literature review methodology, including the selection of studies, the extraction of data from studies, and the statistical methods by which the obtained data would be combined and analyzed. Each of the study group members responsible for the lit- erature review conducted the systematic literature review related to their questions as stated above and presented the results to the group in the second meeting. During the second meeting, which lasted 2 days, the selected studies and the analysis of the data obtained from these studies were presented to the group and discussed, and draft recommendations were formulated for the ques - tions for which sufficient data were available through lit - erature review. The data were considered insufficient for some of the questions. For these questions, the addition- al analyses that were required were determined by the group. Two questions considered to be related to acute pancreatitis rather than CP were excluded from this proj- ect, to be evaluated in the acute pancreatitis project. Missing analyses were completed between the second and the third meeting. In the third meeting, which lasted 2 days, these analyses were presented to the study group by each member. A recommendation was formulated for each research question by combining the evidence from the literature and the opinions of the expert group. The recommendations were prepared for voting by a larger group of gastroenterologists with special interest in CP. A total of 24 gastroenterologists working in University hospitals, state hospitals, and private practice in different cities of Turkey who are interested in CP attended the last meeting. In this meeting, the results of the systemat- ic literature review for each question and the recommen- dation that was developed based on these results were presented. Each recommendation was discussed by the group, and when deemed necessary, minor changes were made and voted. Recommendations approved by at least 70% of the participants were accepted. The recommen - dations that did not reach this rate were discussed, mod- ified, and voted again. The members of the CP consensus study group decided to evaluate the grade of the power of each suggestion according to the level of agreement of each statement, with strong consensus attributed to a level of agreement of 80% or above and weak consensus to a level of agreement less than 80%. Questions and suggestions Question A: What is CP? Suggestion A: CP is an irreversible, progressive, and fi - broinflammatory disease of the pancreas that can lead to functional disorders and/or morphological changes. (Lev- el of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: CP is a chronic irreversible injury of the pan - creas owing to progressive inflammation and fibrosis that might cause loss of endocrine and exocrine function. It is a complex disease with multiple etiologic factors, and its clinical course may vary. Therefore, the diagnosis of CP is challenging. The definition of CP was based on morphological, func - tional, and clinical criteria in the initial consensus reports (3-5). Major morphological changes seen in CP include increased pancreatic parenchymal density, gland atro - phy, calcification, pseudocyst, and irregularity in the main pancreatic duct and lateral branches. However, it has been reported that morphological changes associated with CP may also be seen years after the first episode of acute pancreatitis. The differentiation of acute pancre - atitis from CP by histological features has not been wide- ly accepted because of difficulties in obtaining pancreatic tissue (6, 7). In recent years, a new definition covering the mechanism and typical features of the disease has been proposed. Accordingly, CP is a fibroinflammatory syndrome that is caused by various etiologies in people with environmen - tal, genetic, and/or other risk factors. In the later stages of the disease, pancreatic atrophy, fibrosis, pain, duct distortion, strictures, calcifications, pancreatic exocrine/ endocrine dysfunction, and dysplasia may develop (3, 8). S2 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Question B1-a: What is CP etiology? Suggestion B1-a: The etiology of CP is multifactorial. The most common causative agent known in its etiology is alcohol. Genetic, autoimmune, obstructive, and environ - mental causes are other factors that play a role. (Level of evidence: 2A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Although the incidence of CP varies from country to country, CP has an incidence of 4-23 per 100,000 and a prevalence of 17-42 per 100,000 (9-14). Its incidence in men is 1.5 to 3 times higher than in wom- en. Different etiological factors play a role in CP. Although it is generally multifactorial, the most common cause of CP is alcohol consumption (39%-68%) across the world, with the exception of a few countries (15-23). Patients with alcohol-related CP are typically young to middle-aged (30-50 years old) men who experience recurrent acute pancreatitis attacks and have a histo - ry of regular alcohol consumption (24). The prevalence of pancreatitis is 3-6 times higher in alcoholics than in non-alcoholics. The absolute risk of pancreatitis among those with heavy alcohol use is 2.5% to 3%. Interesting - ly, less than 5% of alcoholic individuals develop CP. This observation means that other factors also contribute to the development of CP. Although there is a parallel rela - tionship between the amount of consumed alcohol and the incidence of the development of CP, its relationship with the type of alcohol and the type of drinking is un - certain (25, 26). In a meta-analysis, a linear relationship was found between mean alcohol consumption and CP in both sexes (relative risk [RR] 25 g/day, 1.58, 95% con - fidence interval [CI], 1.32-1.90; RR 50 g/day, 2.51, 95% CI, 1.74-3.61; RR 75 g/day, 3.97, 95% CI, 2.30-6.85; RR 100 g/day, 6.29, 95% CI, 3.04-13.02) (27). In a per - son who consumes at least 60 g alcohol per day, alcohol should first be considered in the etiology of CP (28, 29). However, drinking a smaller amount of alcohol can also cause damage to the pancreas and affect the course of the disease (30, 31). Pain, acute or recurrent pancreatitis attacks, exocrine insufficiency, complications, and hospi- talization are more common in patients with alcohol-in - duced CP (32-34). Smoking is an important risk factor for the development of CP and also a dose-dependent cofactor (35, 36). Smokers have 2.8 times (95% CI, 1.7-4.8) higher risk of developing CP than non-smokers. According to a meta-analysis, the risk of developing CP in individuals who smoke less than one pack per day is 2.4 (95% CI, 0.9-6.6), whereas this risk increases to 3.3 in those who smoke more than one pack per day (95% CI, 1.4-7.9). It has also been shown that quit- ting smoking reduces the risk of CP and the risk of devel- oping calcification in patients with CP (37). Obstructive causes, autoimmunity, and genetic and he - reditary factors also play a role in the etiology of CP. No reason can be identified in 13% to 40% of patients with CP (15-21). Hereditary CP is a rare form characterized by recurrent episodes of severe epigastric pain, usually seen at an early age. Genetic variations associated with pancreatitis have been reported in the genes for serine protease 1 (PRSS1), serine protease inhibitor kazal type 1 (SPINK1), cystic fi - brosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), chymotrypsin C (CTRC), and carboxypeptidase A1 (CPA1) (38-40). All these genes make trypsins more active than they should be or keep them active for a longer duration. Mutations in CPA1 and CTRC are less common than those in other genes. The pancreatic duct can be partially or complete - ly blocked because of some reasons such as pancreat - ic divisum (PD), annular pancreas, trauma, pseudocyst, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, calcific stones, or steno - ses secondary to tumors. Pancreatic pressure increases with any obstruction. In case of an obstruction becom - ing chronic, it causes dilatation of the duct, loss of acinar cells, and fibrosis, followed by the development of CP. In CP etiology, obstructive factors other than PD are rare. Various reports have shown that PD incidence is higher in patients with acute pancreatitis or CP than in the control group (41, 42). However, PD was found at a rate of 7% to 9% in patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and in autopsy exam - ination of individuals (43). Therefore, it is still a matter of debate whether PD increases the risk of CP (44, 45). With additional risk factors, PD can lead to the development of CP. Genetic screening may be recommended for predis - posing variants if no etiological factor is identified. Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a special type of pan - creatitis with chronic course that arises with autoimmune mechanisms (46). In a study involving 73 patients with type 1 AIP in Japan regarding whether or not AIP caused CP, it was found that CP developed in 16% of cases in an average of 88 months (47). In a study conducted in France, it was shown that atrophy, calcification, and/or duct irregularities and functional impairment developed in pancreas imaging within 3 years after the diagnosis of more than one-third of patients with AIP (48). S3 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Metabolic and toxic causes such as hyperlipidemia, hy - percalcemia, medications, and chronic kidney failure are among the rare causes thought to play a role in the etiol- ogy of CP (15-21). Question B1-b: What are the scoring systems that can be used to classify CP etiologically? Suggestion B1-b: The toxic-metabolic, idiopathic, genet- ic, autoimmune, recurrent and severe acute pancreatitis and obstructive (TIGAR-O) classification can be used in etiological classification. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Weak consensus) Comment: One classification for etiology is the TIGAR-O classification, which includes toxic-metabolic, idiopathic, genetic, autoimmune, recurrent, and obstructive causes (49). This classification system has been developed with the assumption that the development of CP may depend on one or more risk factors. A new version of this classifi- cation, both updated in content and containing a check - list for healthcare workers, has been published, and it can therefore be recommended for use in daily practice (50). In the M-ANNHEIM classification, the stage, severity, and clinical findings of the disease are evaluated. The scoring system is also included in this classification (51). Question B2: How should CP etiology be investigated? Suggestion B2-a: To determine the etiology, alcohol, to - bacco use, disease, medicine, and family history should be questioned first. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of sugges - tion: Strong consensus) Suggestion B2-b: Basic biochemical laboratory tests, lipid profile, and metabolic tests including calcium level should be performed. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Suggestion B2-c: Diagnostic imaging methods can help determine the etiology. (Level of evidence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Suggestion B2-d: Immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) and auto - antibody levels, imaging methods, and, if necessary, bi - opsy are used in those who are considered to have AIP or when etiology is not detected. (Level of evidence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Suggestion B2-e: Considering hereditary pancreatitis, family examination, and genetic testing help. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Suggestion B2-f: Cystic fibrosis should be investigated in young patients and in those with unknown etiology (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: It is important to identify the underlying etiology, as the natural course of the disease, the de - velopment of exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, the appropriate treatment approach, and the risk of pan - creatic cancer differ significantly depending on the eti - ology of CP (52, 53). Different etiological factors play a role in CP. Alcohol is the most responsible factor, but the disease is usually multifactorial. In some cases, eti - ology cannot be determined, and this group is classi - fied as idiopathic CP. To determine the etiology, alcohol, tobacco use, family history, previous and current diseases, and drug history should be questioned first, and general laboratory tests should be performed. Careful anamnesis should be taken from all patients for alcohol. The likelihood of alcohol to play a role in the etiology of CP has increased in patients with a history of high alcohol intake (an average of ≥60 g per day for at least 6 years) (29, 30). Its relationship with alcohol type and drinking style is uncertain (26, 27). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test questionnaire can be used to assess alcohol addiction. Information can be obtained from relatives in case of patients who deny alcohol use. In addition, gamma-glutamyltransferase lev- el, aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase ratio, ferritin level, and mean corpuscular volume increase in those who consume excessive alcohol. Smoking must be questioned because alcohol and tobacco use have a clear relationship with the development of CP. Laboratory tests should be ordered to evaluate other potential etiologies such as hypercalcemia and hyper - lipidemia. It is useful to perform transabdominal ultra - sonography (USG) at the initial stage to assess the etiol - ogies affecting the canal, such as PD, annular pancreas, and pancreatic duct obstruction (e.g., tumors). PD is the most common congenital variant of the pancreas. It has clinical significance in only a small percentage of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and CP. Mag - netic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) can be used in the investigation of the etiology for obstructive patholo - gies such as PD. If possible, secretin-enhanced MRCP (s-MRCP) may be preferred in the first place (54, 55). Because ERCP is a procedure with morbidity and mor - tality, it should not be used for diagnostic purposes if not necessary. S4 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Hereditary pancreatitis should be considered, especially in patients with early age onset and family history and when other causes are excluded. In these patients, it is necessary to evaluate genetic abnormalities (mutations in CFTR, PRSS1, SPINK1, and CTRC) (56). Cystic fibro - sis should be considered especially in pediatric patients whose etiology has not been determined. Sweat test is useful in the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (57). CP is a disease with complex pathogenesis that can have a genetic basis. It was first found in 1996 that the PRSS1 gene plays a role in cases of hereditary pancreatitis (58). In the following years, PRSS1, SPINK1, CFTR, CTRC, CPA1, and calcium-sensing receptor ( CaSR) mutations have been reported as the genes most associated with CP. In an international multicenter study, patients were divided into groups according to the age at which the diagnosis of pancreatitis was established, and PRSS1, SPINK1, CFTR, and CTRC, the most commonly known gene mutations, were investigated in each group. The rate of the detec - tion of at least one genetic mutation was reported to be 71% in patients who had the first pancreatitis attack un- der the age of 6 years, and it was found that PRSS1 gene mutations were significantly higher in this group. How - ever, if the family has a history of acute pancreatitis or CP, pancreatitis can occur because of mutations at any age and mutations are most commonly encountered in the PRSS1 gene (59). Therefore, if the family has at least one or two patients with pancreatitis, screening should be started by mutation analysis of the PRSS1 gene. The same gene screening and genetic counseling should be offered to first-degree relatives of a patient with a PRSS1 mutation. In a meta-analysis investigating the role of PRSS1 gene mutations in CP, it was found that the R122H mutation was detected most commonly in 1,733 cases and the risk of hereditary CP increased (odds ratio [OR], 4.78) (60). If there is no R122H mutation in patients diagnosed as having hereditary pancreatitis, the full sequence of the PRSS1 gene should be recommended and other rare mu- tations should also be investigated. The investigation of genetic mutations at an older age is necessary only in cases of idiopathic CP or recurrent acute pancreatitis. Similarly, in a community-based study conducted in the United States of America, the probabili- ty of detection of a gene associated with pancreatitis was reported to be 20% in the older age group. However, the presence of these mutations does not affect prognosis at an advanced age and does not change the treatment. Therefore, requesting genetic tests should be discussed with the patient, except for familial pancreatitis cases. If the result is positive, genetic counseling should be given (16). Another gene considered as a risk factor in hereditary pancreatitis is SPINK1. In a meta-analysis including CP cases associated with all etiologies, genetic risk factors were investigated in 2,981 patients with CP and 5,819 controls. As a result, SPINK1 mutation was found to in - crease the risk of CP (OR, 9.6) (61). The SPINK1 mutation rate was found to be 8% in idiopathic pancreatitis cases, whereas this rate was reported to be 3% in the healthy population. A similar rate of SPINK1 mutations was found in the healthy population in Turkish society (62). The most reported mutation in the SPINK1 gene is the N34S mutation. Accompaniment of SPINK1 mutations with other gene mutations such as CFTR has been shown to be more common in recurrent pancreatitis (63). CFTR gene mutations are also important in the develop - ment of CP. CFTR is a large gene, and it has more than 1,000 mutations defined to date. Rapid gene analysis

can be preferred in the detection of mutations because the full sequence method is expensive and dif - ficult to interpret. The F508 mutation in the CFTR gene is an important risk factor that facilitates CP (OR, 3.59). CFTR should be investigated in patients who developed CP before the age of 20 years and in idiopathic CP cases. CFTR mutations can be the cause of idiopathic CP with - out any lung involvement (64). However, PRSS1, SPINK1, and CFTR mutations were not encountered in genetic re- search conducted in 38 idiopathic CP cases in Turkish so- ciety (65). In the Turkish population, the variants of these genes may be different or rare. The relationship between CTRC mutations and CP was first reported in 2008 (66). CTRC mutations are a rarer risk factor for idiopathic CP, and mutation in this gene has been reported in 3.3% of patients with CP. CTRC vari - ants have been associated with alcoholic and hereditary CP (67). CaSR is a receptor that regulates the amount of intracellular calcium. Variants in this gene have been found to be of importance, particularly in alcohol-related and hyperparathyroidism-related CP (68). The carboxyl ester lipase ( CEL) gene is highly polymorphic and diffi - cult to analyze. Variants in the CEL gene can lead to the development of maturity-onset diabetes of the young and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) (69). CPA1 was similarly detected in 3% of CP cases that occur at an early age (70). CP is associated with many molecules S5 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee in inflammatory pathways. However, in practice, it is not necessary to investigate mutations in the genes of mol - ecules involved in these pathways as a risk and prognosis factor (71). SPINK1 mutations were detected more in patients who received a diagnosis of alcoholic CP. Similarly, alcohol de- hydrogenase gene mutations, which play a role in alcohol metabolism, increase the risk of CP in Far East races, but they are rarely observed in Turkish society (72, 73). There is no need for further genetic tests in patients diagnosed as having alcoholic CP because the treatment and prog - nosis do not change. If another CP etiology cannot be identified or if there are findings suggesting AIP in imaging methods, research should be conducted accordingly. The most common clinical findings of AIP are obstructive jaundice, abdom - inal symptoms, and weight loss. The most frequent find - ings in imaging are delay in contrast enhancement in the pancreas, rim-like contrast enhancement around the pancreas, and stenosis in the pancreatic duct (74). The most sensitive and specific serum marker for type 1 AIP is serum IgG4 (≥135 mg/dL; sensitivity, 86%; specificity, 96%) (75). In addition, various antibodies such as anti-lac- toferrin antibody, anti–carbonic anhydrase II antibody, antinuclear antibody, and rheumatoid factor are seen at the rates of 75%, 55%, 60%, and 20% to 30%, respec - tively (76). Extrapancreatic involvement is also seen in patients with AIP. The most common is the involvement of the common bile duct distal. Sjogren’s syndrome, in - terstitial nephritis, and retroperitoneal fibrosis rarely co - exist (75). In type 2 AIP, IgG4 level is generally normal and extrapancreatic involvement is rarely seen (77). In pa - tients with obstructive jaundice and/or mass images but without type 1 AIP serology findings and extrapancreatic involvement, type 2 AIP and pancreatic cancer should be excluded. The response rate to steroid in both type 1 and type 2 AIP is 97% to 98% (78, 79). In AIP cases, EUS both helps in imaging and provides cytopathological diagnosis if necessary (80). Question C1-a: What are the types of pain in CP? Suggestion C1-a: The pain may be intermittent and/or chronic. Some patients with CP may not have pain. (Level of evidence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: More than half of patients with CP have inter - mittent or continuous pain. In CP, the mechanism of pain is basically of the inflammatory type. In animal models, inflammatory pain in CP has been shown to be generally similar to other chronic inflammatory conditions (81). In - flammatory mediators, neuropeptides, and a number of neurotropic factors increase in CP and can contribute to the pathogenesis of pain. Neuropathic pain is proposed as a second pain mechanism. The perineurium of the intra - pancreatic nerves is often infiltrated by immune cells (82, 83). Pain may occur because of pancreatic duct obstruc - tion, strictures, peripancreatic fibrosis, or ischemia (84, 85). Nociceptive pathways are also thought to be effective on pain in CP, and it has been shown that there are changes at the cortical level in the central nervous system (86). Pain may also occur in CP because of complications. There may be abdominal pain in association with defective digestion or maldigestion in CP. In a randomized clinical study con - ducted on this issue, a marked improvement in dyspeptic complaints and abdominal pain was shown with pancreat- ic enzyme replacement (87). Consequently, to investigate the etiology of pain, appropriate imaging methods should be used in terms of obstructive pathologies and complica- tions. If these causes are excluded, the pain is considered to be of inflammatory or neuropathic origin. Question C1-b: How do we score pain in CP? Suggestion C1-b: The pattern of the pain, along with its severity, should be evaluated. Although there is not a standard method for assessing pain, the visual analog scale (VAS) can be used because of its ease of use to score the severity of pain in daily practice. (Level of evi - dence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: The pain pattern in CP may be characterized by one or more different pain periods separated from each other by painless periods, or it may be in a differ - ent pattern accompanied by exacerbations of persistent pain in some patients (88). In a prospective cohort study involving a total of 540 patients with CP, patients with continuous pain patterns were demonstrated to have a lower quality of life than those with intermittent pain patterns (89). There are many scoring systems to score pain in CP. Among these, VAS, which is used most frequently in studies, consists of numbers from 0 to 10 on a 10-cm line and shows the severity of pain increasing between 0 and 10. Although scoring with VAS is simple, this method is not very successful in scoring pain, because the quality of life cannot be evaluated and it focuses only on the pain at that moment and does not show the course of pain (90). The McGill Pain Score, which was first used in 1971, consists of four subsections, and the location, duration, S6 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 severity, and feature of the pain (throbbing pain, break - through pain, etc.) and change in its severity over time are questioned in this scoring system. However, there is no question about quality of life in this scoring system (91). In the Brief Pain Inventory, which is another scoring sys - tem, there are 4 VASs related to the lightest, most severe, and moderate pain and pain currently felt in the last 24 hours. There is also a diagram in this inventory in which the patient will mark the areas where he feels pain (92). The Short Form 36 (SF-36) scoring system consists of 36 questions in total, including physical functionality (10 items), body pain (2 items), role restrictions because of physical health problems (4 items), role restrictions be - cause of personal or emotional problems (4 items), emo- tional well-being (5 items), social functionality (2 items), energy/fatigue (4 items), and role restrictions because of general health perceptions (5 items) (93). Scores for each area range from 0 to 100; a higher score defines a more positive health condition. In this system, the quality of life can be questioned. Quality of life and pain are questioned together in the Short Form 12 (SF-12) scoring system, which is a summary derived from SF-36. In a study in - volving 141 patients with CP and healthy controls, SF-12 was shown to be a good alternative to SF-36 in terms of questioning the quality of life (94). In the İzbicki Pain Score, the average of the scores given between 0 and 100 for the four subquestions, including VAS, the frequency of pain attacks, the use of pain killers, and the inability to work, are taken. This scoring partially in- cludes the quality of life, but it has not been validated (95). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 scoring system, which is the most comprehensive system among these systems, is a multidimensional scoring system in which pain and quality of life are questioned in detail (96). Recently, a new scoring system called Pancreatitis Quality of Life Instrument, which is specific to CP and allows for the evaluation of the quality of life, has been developed (97). Among these numerous tests, scoring systems that particularly include quality of life criteria and pain ques - tioning at the same time should be preferred to scoring systems that only question pain (90). Question C2-a: What is EPI? Suggestion C2-a: EPI is a condition characterized by the insufficiency of pancreatic exocrine secretion (enzyme and bicarbonate), resulting in impaired digestive function and nutrient malabsorption. It can appear through sev - eral mechanisms, including failure to secrete, activate, and synthesize the enzymes and impaired transport of enzymes to the duodenum of the pancreatic duct. Con - sequently, nutrients do not encounter the pancreatic exocrine secretions in duodenum. (Level of evidence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: EPI is a condition characterized by insufficient pancreatic exocrine enzymes and/or insufficient secre - tion of sodium bicarbonate, resulting in the inability of digestion of fats, carbohydrates, and proteins (98-100). EPI usually occurs when the digestive enzymes cannot be synthesized as a result of damage to the functional pa - renchyma of the pancreas or to the vagal innervation that stimulates enzyme secretion. It may also occur because of failure in the activation of the synthesized enzymes in the duodenum, an increase in their inactivation, or failure in encountering nutrients in the duodenum as a result of gastrointestinal (GI) bypass surgeries (101, 102). Question C2-b: When should EPI be investigated? Suggestion C2-b: Every patient who has received a diag- nosis of CP should be investigated in terms of EPI. (Level of evidence: 1B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: The prevalence of EPI in the general population is not fully known because of the lack of an appropriate screening test. In CP, EPI develops after the destruction of more than 90% of functional pancreatic parenchyma. Stricture in the pancreatic duct or obstruction resulting from stones causes the picture to develop earlier or wors- en. The development of exocrine insufficiency increases in parallel with the duration of the disease in CP. The time from the onset of symptoms to the development of EPI is an average of 26.3 years for early-onset CP, 16.9 years for late-onset idiopathic CP, and 13.1 years in alcoholic pancreatitis (33). EPI occurs in 80% of patients with AIP. Its prevalence was detected to be 85% in advanced CP, 50% in inoperable pancreatic cancer, 56% after pancreaticoduodenectomy, 85% in cystic fibrosis, 30% in celiac disease, and 40% in diabetes (33, 100, 103, 104). EPI may develop because of diabetic exocrine pancreat - ic pathology, and sometimes the underlying CP may be missed in patients diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus (DM). In a study in which 1,868 newly diagnosed patients with diabetes were evaluated retrospectively, it was re - S7 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee ported that 9.2% of cases were pancreatogenic diabetes (78.5% CP), and half of them were treated as type 2 DM (105). In a meta-analysis on this subject, 1,178 patients with type 1 DM were compared with 1,566 controls, and 1,938 patients with type 2 DM were compared with 1,928 controls, for the presence of EPI. It was observed that the frequency of EPI (39% and 28%, respectively) was sig - nificantly higher in both patient groups than the controls (106). Steatorrhea and weight loss are late symptoms, and they appear when pancreatic lipase secretion decreases be - low 10% of normal value. Swelling, abdominal pain, and diarrhea are frequent symptoms (100). Osteomalacia, os- teoporosis, and kidney failure occur because of impaired absorption of fat-soluble vitamins when EPI is mild or moderate (100, 107). Therefore, EPI should be considered in patients with the above-mentioned risk factors, even in the presence of non-specific symptoms. Question C2-c: Which laboratory methods are used in the diagnosis of EPI? Suggestion C2-c1: The pancreatic exocrine function can be tested either directly or indirectly. The direct tests are more valuable tests; however, they are less accessible and difficult to implement. Regarding indirect tests, quanti - tative fat measurement in the stool sample, 13C-mixed triglyceride ( 13C-MTG) breath test, and fecal elastase-1 (FE-1) levels are alternative tests. The FE-1 test is recom- mended for daily use because of its easy accessibility and applicability. (Level of evidence: 1B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Suggestion C2-c2: When the tests are inaccessible, di - agnosis can be made from treatment by evaluating the patient’s response to pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT). (Level of evidence: 5; Power of sugges - tion: Strong consensus) Comment: Direct and indirect tests are used in the diag - nosis of EPI (100, 107). The gold standard in EPI diagnosis is direct pancreatic function tests. These tests are based on collecting and measuring pancreatic secretions from the duodenum or pancreatic duct after the administra - tion of a secretagogue (107). They are invasive and tech - nically difficult to apply in daily practice. Therefore, they are not preferred apart from clinical studies. Quantitative fecal fat measurement (72-hour quantita - tive fat test and steatocrit test), which is one of the in - direct tests, is accepted as the gold standard in the di - agnosis of EPI and in the evaluation of the effectiveness and adequacy of PERT. However, this test is not preferred in daily practice as it is difficult to apply in terms of both patient and laboratory (107). Pancreatic elastase is highly stable throughout the GI transition, and the fecal concentration of this enzyme is greater than the pancreatic duct concentration. There - fore, it is significantly associated with exocrine pancreat- ic functions (107-109). The FE-1 test is performed with specific enzyme immunoassay on a small amount of stool sample. It offers an important advantage in that it is not affected by PERT. Because this test is easy to apply and to attain in daily practice, it can be used as a first step test for EPI research. Although FE-1 measurement is not sen- sitive enough to detect patients with mild CP, its sensitiv- ity reaches 100% in moderate and severe disease states (110, 111). In another study comparing the FE-1 test with the secretin-cerulein test, fecal fat analysis, and FC test, a similar result was reached. The FE-1 test has been shown to be a sensitive test in the diagnosis of moderate and severe EPI (112). In a meta-analysis on this subject, it was found that a level of FE-1 <200 μg/g was significant for the diagnosis of EPI. The sensitivity and specificity of the FE-1 test in EPI diagnosis were found to be 0.77 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93), respectively. In subgroup analysis, the sensitivity of the FE-1 test for the diagnosis of mild, moderate, and severe EPI was found to be 0.47 (95% CI, 0.29-0.70), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.25-0.92), and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-0.99), respectively (113). The 13C-MTG breath test is a simple, non-invasive meth- od for the diagnosis of EPI. This test can be easily per - formed in the clinical routine and can be repeated if nec- essary. The test can be used not only in the diagnosis of EPI but also in monitoring PERT activity. Therefore, the 13C-MTG breath test can be used in the diagnosis of EPI developing after CP, cystic fibrosis, pancreatic cancer, acute necrotizing pancreatitis, and stomach or duode - num surgery (107, 114, 115). In a prospective randomized controlled study, the results of the 13C-MTG breath test in 78 patients with CP with EPI were significantly lower than in those without EPI. The sensitivity of 13C-MTG breath test in the diagnosis of EPI was 92.9%, its spec - ificity was 92.9%, and its accuracy was 92.3%. It has been concluded that the test is easy, accurate, and safe for the diagnosis of EPI (116). In a study involving 54 pa - tients with CP, the 13C-MTG breath test and the FE-1 test were found to have similar efficacy in the diagnosis of EPI (117). In another study comparing the 13C-MTG test with FE-1 and chymotrypsin tests, the FE-1 test was found to S8 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 be more sensitive in patients with severe EPI, but it was concluded that the 13C-MTG test could also be used in these cases (118). Question C2-d: Which imaging methods are used in the diagnosis of EPI? Suggestion C2-d: In the diagnosis of EPI, s-MRCP is a new and safe test. (Level of evidence: 3B; Power of sug - gestion: Strong consensus) Comment: s-MRCP is a non-invasive direct pancreatic function test that allows the structure and function of the pancreas to be evaluated together. It does not help to reveal the cause of EPI, but it has an important role in its diagnosis (119) Studies on s-MRCP are limited to small patient groups, and there is not sufficient evidence to recommend its use alone in the diagnosis of EPI yet. In a study involving 41 patients with CP, the sensitivity of the s-MRCP test in the diagnosis of EPI was 72% and specificity was 87% (120). In another study, magnetic resonance (MR) and s-MRCP findings of 36 patients with suspected CP were compared with the findings of an en- doscopic pancreatic function test, and it was found that s-MRCP had 100% sensitivity and specificity (121). Ac - cording to the results of a study comparing MR, MRCP, s-MRCP, and diffusion-weighted imaging methods, it was concluded that only the last two methods were suit- able for use in the diagnosis of EPI (122). In 36 CP cases with mild, moderate, and severe EPI, FE-1 test, MRCP, and s-MRCP were compared, and it was found that s-MRCP was a new, safe, and adequate test to evaluate EPI (123). Question C3a: How is endocrine insufficiency diag - nosed? Suggestion C3a: Diabetes may develop in patients with CP. The diagnosis of diabetes is made according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. (Level of evidence: 3B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: DM is a metabolic disease with insulin defi - ciency and/or insulin resistance. According to the Inter - national Diabetes Federation 2017 data, the prevalence of diabetes in adults is reported as 8.8% worldwide. The diagnosis of DM is made according to ADA guidelines, which define the following diagnostic criteria: (a) fast - ing (longer than 8 hours) blood glucose above 126 mg/ dL, (b) second hour blood glucose level of ≥200 mg/dL in the oral glucose tolerance test with 75 g glucose, (c) plasma glucose level of ≥200 mg/dL measured at a ran - dom time and in the presence of diabetes symptoms, and (d) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of ≥6.5%. If one of these four criteria is met by measurements made prefer- ably on 2 different days, DM can be diagnosed. Accord - ing to the ADA 2018 guide review report, DM is divided into four categories, type 1 DM, type 2 DM, gestational DM, and specific type DM owing to other causes (such as drug-induced DM, monogenic diabetic syndrome, and EPI-associated DM) (124). Question C3b: Is diabetes associated with CP different from other types of diabetes? Suggestion C3b: Pancreatogenic diabetes can be consid- ered in patients with DM having islet cell antibody nega - tivity and an FE-1 level under 200 μg/g. (Level of evidence: 3B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Pancreatogenic DM accounts for approxi - mately 10% (the range varies from 1.75% to 35.2%) of all diabetes cases (106, 125, 126). However, because of a lack of standardized criteria, the exact prevalence is not known. The most sensitive diagnostic method for pan - creatogenic DM is low levels of pancreatic polypeptide (PP) in serum after a mixed meal in islet cell antibody– negative patients with diabetes. However, this method is not used in clinical practice. The definition of pancreatogenic diabetes varies among studies. In most studies, it is defined as a FE-1 level below 200 μ/g with the presence of imaging findings suggest - ing CP in patients with diabetes who are islet cell anti - body–negative (106, 125-127). However, in some studies, it is also accepted as diabetes developing after an acute pancreatitis attack and/or in patients with a history of CP (23, 128, 129). In a retrospective study, the diagnoses of 1,868 patients diagnosed with DM were reviewed, and 172 of these patients were found to have pancreatogenic DM. It was reported that 11 of these 172 patients were previously followed up for type 1 DM and 69 for type 2 DM, and the initial diagnosis of only 88 was reported as pancreatogenic DM (106). Approximately 80% of DM cases accompanying EPI are caused by CP (106). The frequency of DM in patients with CP is reported between 20% and 70% (23, 106, 125-129). This rate increases with increasing disease age and in - creases up to 85% in 25 years, especially in patients with alcohol-related CP. For this reason, diabetes screening with annual fasting blood glucose and HbA1c is recom - mended in patients with CP (130). In the study by Wang et al. (129), 347 patients with CP were evaluated, and S9 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee 51% of patients developed diabetes in 20 years. Consid - ering the characteristics of patients who developed DM in the same study, it has been reported that diabetes occurs more frequently in smokers, those with pancreatic cal - cification, those diagnosed as having CP at a young age, and those who develop alcohol-related CP (129). The mechanism of the occurrence of pancreatogenic DM is different from that of type 1 and type 2 DM. Severe fibrosis in the pancreatic parenchyma and associated ischemia damage the insulin-secreting beta cells, glu - cagon-secreting alpha cells, and PP-secreting PP cells. Damage of alpha cells results in inadequate glucagon re - sponse in case of hypoglycemia. Reduced PP release from PP cells in patients with pancreatogenic DM decreases the sensitivity of hepatocytes to insulin. Although these patients have insulin resistance in the liver because of PP deficiency, peripheral insulin sensitivity is increased or normal. Another factor contributing to hepatic insu - lin resistance in patients with CP is inflammation. Insu - lin controls gluconeogenesis in the liver through insulin receptors and glucose transporter type 2 (GLUT2) pro - tein. Inflammation in CP stimulates hepatocyte I-kappa beta kinase beta and nuclear factor κB receptors, re - ducing the number of insulin receptors on hepatocytes and decreasing the effect of insulin on hepatocytes by causing GLUT2 proteins to be internalized. As a result, insulin stimulation of hepatic gluconeogenesis does not decrease as required and creates a tendency to hypergly- cemia. Moreover, because of increased/normal peripheral insulin sensitivity, the contribution of glucagon deficiency also creates a predisposition to hypoglycemia, especially in patients using insulin. As a net result of these events, brittle DM may emerge (131-134). The interaction between diabetes and pancreas is not unidirectional. Studies evaluating the effect of DM on pancreatic parenchyma recently show that interacinar and acinar fibrosis can develop in type 1 and type 2 DM before the development of pancreatic duct damage and marked parenchymal inflammation. Although pancreatic exocrine secretions decrease in this picture, EPI does not develop clinically. This effect of diabetes on the pancre - atic parenchyma is defined as diabetic exocrine pancre - atopathy (107). Although it is not always possible to differentiate clinical- ly from diabetes types, pancreatogenic DM can be seen in all age groups, hyperglycemia is usually mild, and the risk of ketoacidosis is low in these patients (135). There are insufficient data on the risk and duration of compli - cations associated with pancreatogenic diabetes. In the 15-year follow-up of patients with diabetes, there was no difference between other diabetes types in terms of the development of retinopathy (136). Question D1-a: Are biochemical laboratory tests useful in the diagnosis of CP? Suggestion D1-a: The sensitivity and specificity of bio - chemical tests in the diagnosis of CP are low. (Level of evidence: 3B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Routine laboratory tests are not generally use- ful in CP. Complete blood count, electrolytes, and liver function tests are often normal in these patients. Tests may reveal malabsorption-related anemia, and apolipo - protein, total cholesterol, magnesium, fat-soluble vita - mins (A, D, E, and K), vitamin B 12, calcium, zinc, selenium, and prealbumin levels may be decreased (98, 137). If al - kaline phosphatase (ALP), transaminases, and bilirubin levels are high, edema, fibrosis, or choledochal stenosis because of pancreatic cancer should be considered (138, 139). Investigation of lipid panel and serum calcium levels in these patients is important for determining the etiolo- gy of CP. Hyperparathyroidism should also be investigat - ed in the presence of high calcium levels (140). Serum amylase and lipase levels are mostly normal or slightly increased because CP is a patch-style focal dis - ease and parenchyma has fibrosis. However, during acute pancreatitis attacks, pancreatic enzyme levels typically increase more than 3 times the normal levels. As a result, amylase and lipase do not have diagnostic or prognostic significance in CP (139). In the literature, the only study on the adequacy of amylase and lipase in the diagnosis of CP reported the sensitivity of the tests as 56% and 54%, respectively, in CP patients who received a diagnosis of ERCP (140). The diagnosis of CP can be made easily in advanced dis - ease with the help of typical clinical findings and imaging methods. In early-stage disease, diagnosis is difficult, es- pecially in patients without classical clinical findings, and there is no single diagnostic test. In this case, those that can be reached among pancreatic exocrine function tests can be applied for helping the diagnosis by calculating profit and loss (138, 139). Tests used to determine exo - crine pancreatic functions are the FE-1, fecal chymotryp- sin (FC), and pancreolauryl serum (PLS) tests. Apart from these biochemical tests, the cholecystokinin (CCK)-se - cretin stimulation test, which is an endoscopic test, is the most sensitive test in determining exocrine pancre - S10 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 atic function, but it has no place in daily clinical practice because it is uncomfortable for the patient and it is not easily accessible (141, 142). In the literature, there are no satisfactory data regarding the use of non-invasive biochemical tests in the diagno - sis of CP. The test that has been examined in terms of diagnostic adequacy the most and has relatively higher sensitivity than other tests is the FE-1 test. In a study in- volving 131 patients with CP, the sensitivity of the FE-1, FC, and PLS tests in diagnosing CP was found to be 79%, 48%, and 71%, respectively (143). In the study by Domin- guez-Munoz et al. (109), the sensitivity of FE-1, FC, and PLS was reported to be 0% in diagnosing early CP. Question D1-b: Which imaging method is used for the diagnosis of CP? Suggestion D1-b: Transabdominal USG, EUS, MR/MRCP, and computed tomography (CT) can be used in the di - agnosis of CP. EUS, MR/MRCP, CT, and ERCP are more sensitive and specific than conventional USG. Consid - ering the safety and cost, transabdominal USG can be accepted as the first-line diagnostic method. Because of its invasiveness, the use of ERCP for diagnostic purposes should be avoided. (Level of evidence: 2A; Power of sug- gestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Imaging methods play a key role in the diag - nosis of CP. The main imaging methods used in diagnosis are transabdominal USG, EUS, MR/MRCP, CT, and ERCP. In a meta-analysis on this subject, imaging methods were compared with each other, and the sensitivity and spec - ificity of ERCP was found to be numerically superior to that of transabdominal USG, CT, and EUS, but it was not found to be statistically significant (144). In a study by Pungpapong et al. (145), the sensitivities of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of CP were found to be 93% and 80%, respectively, and both tests were demonstrated to be an alternative imaging method to ERCP. In another conducted study, USG, EUS, CT, and ERCP methods were compared for the diagnosis of CP, and the lowest sensi - tivity and specificity values were determined in transab - dominal USG (58% and 75%, respectively). According to the study, the sensitivity and specificity of CT were found to be 75%; the sensitivity of EUS and ERCP was 88% and 74%, respectively; and the specificity was 100% in both (146). Although EUS elastography is used primarily in the dif - ferential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, there are recent data showing that it is also useful in the diagnosis of CP (147). In studies investigating the effectiveness of EUS elastography in the diagnosis of CP (although dif - ferent elastography parameters and threshold values are used), its sensitivity was found as 71% to 77% and its specificity as 72% to 92% (147-149). Question E1-a: When should biliary stenosis be investi - gated in CP? Suggestion E1-a: Asymptomatic biliary stenosis may oc- cur in patients with CP. Patients with increased persistent ALP and/or increased bilirubin should be evaluated for bil- iary stenosis. (Level of evidence: 2A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Before the choledoch opens to the duode - num, it proceeds in an average of 3 cm (1.5-6 cm) of the pancreatic parenchyma. In CP, which is a fibroinflam - matory process, inflammation and fibrosis occurring in the pancreatic parenchyma can affect the intrapancre - atic part of the choledoch and cause biliary obstruction, which is one of its important complications. The frequen- cy of biliary stenosis has been reported in between 5% and 64% of patients who underwent ERCP or percutane- ous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) (127, 150-153). Patients with CP with biliary stenosis can be asymptom - atic. The earliest finding detected is high persistent ALP values. In a meta-analysis on this subject, ALP was found to be more than two times higher in 63% to 100% of patients, whereas 38% to 100% of patients had higher bilirubin values (150). Littenberg et al. (154) reported that the persistent elevation of ALP in CP was associated with biliary stenosis because of fibrosis, whereas transient el - evations were caused by acute attacks developing in the

of CP. Question E1-b: What imaging methods are used to diag- nose biliary stenosis in CP? Suggestion E1-b: Transabdominal USG, MR/MRCP, and EUS can be used to assess stenosis. (Level of evidence: 2A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: The accuracy of transabdominal USG, which can be reached rapidly and easily, in diagnosing extrahe - patic biliary obstruction is quite high (96%) (155). How - ever, the accuracy of USG in detecting the cause of bili - ary obstruction is 71%. If the cause of stenosis is CP, this rate decreases to 59%. ERCP and PTC are accepted as the gold standard in evaluating the diagnosis, level, and etiology of biliary obstruction. However, because of their invasiveness and the risk of complications, their use for diagnostic purposes has gradually decreased, and MRCP S11 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee and EUS have replaced them. In the study by Materne et al. (156), the sensitivity of MR and EUS in the diagnosis of biliary stenosis was 91% and 97%, respectively, and the specificity was 94% and 88%, respectively. In anoth- er study investigating the role of EUS in evaluating distal choledoch stenoses, EUS was found to be 91% sensitive and 100% specific, and it was reported that its sensitivity was 94% and its specificity was 82% in the distinction of malignant and benign (157). Question E1-c: How is gastric outlet obstruction recog - nized? Suggestion E1-c: It should be considered in patients with persistent nausea and vomiting. For diagnosis, barium x-ray, oral contrast-enhanced CT, and upper GI endosco- py can be used. (Level of evidence: 3A; Power of sugges - tion: Strong consensus) Comment: Gastric outlet obstruction because of CP is a rare complication seen in 5% (0.5%-13%) of patients (127, 158-161). In patients with CP, it should be consid - ered in the presence of clinically early saturation, nausea/ vomiting, and weight loss. Vomiting usually occurs shortly after eating, and if stenosis is in the distal papilla, there may be bile. Symptoms usually last less than 2 weeks if they occur because of inflammation occurring in acute pancreatitis attacks developing in the background of CP and inflammation-triggered duodenal spasm. Longer symptoms are considered as irreversible because of fibro- sis (160, 162-164). In addition to the mechanical com - pression caused by the fibroinflammatory process occur- ring in the pancreas, arteriolar narrowing and thrombosis, ischemia in the wall of the duodenum, and fibrosis and related narrowing over time can develop (160, 162). In the literature, barium x-rays and upper GI system en - doscopy were used in the diagnostic approach in patients suspected to have gastric outlet obstruction. Barium x-rays provide information about the level, severity, and length of the stenosis. Oral contrast-enhanced upper ab- dominal CT provides additional benefits in detecting oth- er causes of stenosis (e.g., tumor infiltration, pseudocyst pressure, or hematoma in the duodenum wall). In upper GI system endoscopy, malignancies infiltrating the duo - denum wall can be eliminated by biopsies collected from the region of stenosis (158, 159, 161). Question E2-a: How is splanchnic venous thrombosis (SVT) diagnosed? Suggestion E2-a: Doppler USG should be the preferred

in the diagnosis of SVT. As a second option, con- trast-enhanced CT should be chosen because of its easy applicability and advantage it offers in evaluating com - plications related to CP. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: In CP, SVT can affect one or more vessels. SVT involves hepatic vein, portal vein, mesenteric vein, and splenic vein thrombosis. Although splenic vein throm - bosis is more common in patients with CP than in those with acute pancreatitis, portal vein thrombosis and mes - enteric vein thrombosis are less common. In CP, the prev- alence of SVT, portal vein, splenic vein, and mesenteric vein thrombosis are reported as 11.6%, 3.5%, 12.8%, and 1.2%, respectively (165). The sensitivity and specificity of the D-dimer and P-se - lectin combination, which are among the serum markers, in the diagnosis of splenic vein thrombosis are 82% and 97.6%, respectively (166). However, there is no study evaluating these markers in patients with CP. In addi - tion to serum markers, Doppler USG, contrast-enhanced CT, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging methods can be used in the diagnosis of SVT. In the literature, there is no randomized controlled study comparing non-inva - sive methods to diagnose SVT in CP. Doppler USG is a low-cost method that allows real-time evaluation of the flow direction and flow rate of the portal venous system. Therefore, it can be considered as the first method to be preferred in the diagnosis of SVT. In patients with pan - creatitis, contrast-enhanced CT has the advantage of showing extravascular pancreatic pathologies as well as evaluating the splanchnic venous system (167). However, it should be preferred in selected cases because of the nephrotoxic effect of the contrast agent. Contrast-en - hanced MR is more sensitive than USG in displaying the portal venous system and portosystemic collaterals, but it is not a cost-effective method (168). Question E2-b: How is a pseudoaneurysm diagnosed? Suggestion E2-b: The sensitivity and specificity of con - trast-enhanced cross-sectional examinations are high in the diagnosis of pseudoaneurysm. It can be preferred in cases with suspected bleeding. Conventional angiogra - phy is the most effective method, and in addition to di - agnosis, it can provide therapeutic contribution. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Pseudoaneurysm is a rare, life-threatening vascular complication of CP. It often develops in CP be - cause of the damage of proteolytic enzymes on the ves - sel wall (169). Pseudoaneurysms can rupture into the GI S12 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 tract, peritoneal cavity, pseudocyst, retroperitoneum, and pancreatic and biliary ducts (170). Non-invasive and invasive imaging methods are used to diagnose pseudo - aneurysm. Transabdominal USG is an easy-to-apply, re - peatable, and cost-effective non-invasive method that provides real-time imaging. However, in the diagnosis of pseudoaneurysm, its sensitivity is low compared with contrast-enhanced CT (171). Although it has been re - ported that methods such as USG-based contrast-en - hanced examination and super microvascular imaging may be useful in the diagnosis of pseudoaneurysm, these

are not yet widely clinically used (172, 173). Con- trast-enhanced CT and MR are non-invasive cross-sec - tional examination methods that can provide an advan - tage in evaluating other complications of CP other than vascular pathologies (171, 174). It is reported in a few case reports that EUS, which is one of the invasive imag- ing methods, can play an active role in the diagnosis and treatment of pseudoaneurysm (175-177). Conventional angiography, which is an invasive method in the diagnosis of pseudoaneurysm, is a highly sensitive method and pro- vides a therapeutic contribution (178, 179). Question F1-a: Does ceasing alcohol and smoking affect the course of CP? Suggestion F1-a: It is useful to cease alcohol (Level of evidence: 2A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus ) and smoking (Level of evidence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) in patients with CP. Comment: There are only a few studies investigating the effects of ceasing alcohol on the natural course of CP. In alcohol-related CP, even though alcohol intake is stopped, the progression of the disease continues, but this process is slower and the course of the disease is less severe (180). Because those who consume large amounts of alcohol are generally heavy smokers, it makes it diffi - cult to determine the pathogenic role of these two fac - tors in the tissue damage of the pancreas (37). A significant number of patients with CP describing pain consist of those who smoke. There is no clear evidence about the positive effect of quitting smoking on pain. In retrospective cohort studies, tobacco use has been shown to accelerate the development of calcification and DM in chronic alcoholic pancreatitis, independent of alcohol consumption (28, 181, 182). It was demonstrated in a prospective cohort study that smoking cessation in the first years since the onset of clinical signs of CP re - duced the risk of developing calcification in the pancreas (183). Considering that patients with CP who smoke have a worse quality of life, ceasing smoking may be thought to be beneficial (28, 37, 181-184). Question F1-b: How should micronutrient and vitamin therapy be? Suggestion F1-b: In terms of fat-soluble vitamin (A, D, E, and K), vitamin B 12, zinc, and magnesium deficiency, patients should be screened and replaced if necessary. (Level of evidence: 2A; Power of suggestion: Strong con- sensus) Comment: In patients with CP, hemoglobin, serum albu - min, prealbumin, retinol binding protein, and magnesium levels may decrease in parallel with EPI (185). In a study, vitamin A, D, E, and K deficiencies in patients with CP were found to be 3%, 53%, 10%, and 63%, respectively (186). In a prospective cohort study, serum vitamin A level in 14.5% of patients with CP and vitamin E level in 24.2% were lower than healthy controls, whereas in another controlled study, plasma level in 16% of patients and vi - tamin E level in 75% of patients were found to be low (187, 188). Although there are differences between the

of the studies, a significant number of patients with CP have vitamin deficiencies. Therefore, supportive treatment should be applied in terms of fat-soluble vita - mins (vitamins A, D, E, and K) and other micronutrients in patients requiring them (189). In patients with CP, the prevalence of vitamin D deficien- cy is high, and a decrease in bone mineral density can be detected accordingly (190, 191). Osteoporosis is found in approximately one-fourth of patients and osteoporosis or osteopenia in approximately two-thirds of patients (192, 193). Consequently, osteoporosis and osteopenia should be kept in mind and treated in patients with CP. Question F1-c: How should a diet be in the treatment of CP? Suggestion F1-c: Every patient diagnosed as having CP should be evaluated in terms of malnutrition and sarco - penia. Nutritional support must be applied simultaneous- ly with PERT. Dietary fat restriction should be avoided. If oral nutrition is insufficient, enteral nutrition support can be applied. (Level of evidence: 2A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Nutritional disorders may occur in CP because of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and DM, and malnu- trition is quite common. Patients with CP generally tend to have low body weight (194, 195). Malnutrition is man - ifested by a decrease in muscle mass (sarcopenia). Sar - S13 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee copenia has negative effects in terms of disease course, risk of complications, and quality of life. While evaluating the nutritional status of patients with CP, the amount of nutrients that the patient receives, body composition, daily activities, quality of life, and inflammatory process - es should be taken into consideration (196). In these pa - tients, anthropometric measurements and the Nutrition- al Risk Screening 2002 scoring system can be used for nutritional evaluation (197). PERT taken with meals with normal fat content (30%- 35% of total energy intake) forms the basis of EPI treat - ment. In these patients, daily calorie intake should be 25- 30 kcal/kg, protein amount should be 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day, and fat amount should constitute 30% to 35% of total energy (196, 198). In patients with CP, dietary fat restric - tion and very-high-fiber diets should be avoided (199, 200). In CP, more than 80% of patients can be fed with normal foods supported with pancreatic enzymes. Nutri - tional supplements are needed in 10% to 15% of all pa - tients, and tube feeding may be required in approximately 5% (196). In a randomized controlled study conducted on 60 patients with CP with undernutrition, balanced nutri - tion with home-cooked food with the guidance of dietary counseling has been shown to be as effective as commer- cial food supplements in improving malnutrition (201). Question F2-a: How should analgesic treatment be? Suggestion F2-a: In the medical treatment of pain asso - ciated with CP, the step therapy recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for chronic pain treat - ment should be applied. Opioid drugs should be attempt- ed to be discontinued as quickly as possible, and com - bined therapies should be considered to reduce the dose of opioid drugs and thus the risk of side effects. (Level of evidence: 1B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Approximately 85% to 97% of patients with CP experience pain throughout their illness. Pain is more likely to occur in patients who develop the disease at an early age and for whose etiology alcohol is responsi - ble. Pain in CP also negatively affects the quality of life of the patient (81). The mechanisms of pain in CP have not been fully clarified yet. It is thought to occur because of multifactorial causes such as inflammation, duct ob - struction, high pancreatic tissue pressure (compartment syndrome), fibrotic changes in sensory nerves, and neu - ropathy (202). When arranging pain treatment, the possible causes of pain should be considered first. GI complications such as peptic ulcer can develop in CP. In patients with peptic ul- cer or thought to be at a high risk for developing peptic ulcer, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy can be start - ed. In patients with stenosis or stones in the pancreatic duct, further interventional treatments should be taken into account to provide pain palliation (203). The caus - es, type, and severity of pain and comorbid conditions or symptoms may differ in patients with CP. Therefore, pain treatment needs to be individualized. When start - ing pain treatment in patients with CP, the first step is to stop smoking and alcohol use because these agents are known to negatively affect the prognosis of the disease (180, 184). In the medical treatment of pain, the pain ladder ap - proach, which was proposed by WHO in 1986 but re - mains valid, is applied (204). This treatment approach was developed for patients with cancer but later became widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. According to this treatment approach, if the pain response cannot be obtained with the drugs in one step, it is passed to the next step. When applying step therapy, patients should be monitored in terms of whether drugs are used in the appropriate dose and range and for side effects. According to this approach, it is recommended to use non-opioid analgesics (acetylsalicylic acid, acetamino - phen, and selective or non-selective non-steroidal an - ti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) in the first step. How - ever, there is no study evaluating the effectiveness of acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, or NSAIDs in pain management in CP. According to step treatment, pain treatment can be started with acetaminophen in patients with CP, but NSAIDs should be avoided because of the risk of GI complications. If pain palliation cannot be achieved with the first-line drugs, the second step is used. In this step, weak opi - oids (codeine, hydrocodone, and tramadol) can be used alone or in combination with non-opioid or adjuvant treatments. In the third step, strong opioids (morphine, oxycodone, methadone, hydromorphone, and fentan - yl) are used alone or in combination with non-opioid or adjuvant treatments. Both tramadol and morphine are highly effective in the treatment of pain in CP. In a ran - domized controlled study comparing these two opioids, tramadol was found to be more successful in the treat - ment of pain in CP, and it was shown to have fewer GI side effects (205). Considering that the risk of addiction is lower than morphine, tramadol may be preferred in patients with CP. S14 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Transdermal fentanyl may be an option for pain man - agement in patients with limited oral intake. In a study conducted by Niemann et al. (206), the effectiveness of transdermal fentanyl in pain management in CP was found to be similar to that of morphine. However, atten - tion should be paid to dermal side effects. Neuropathic pain has become prominent in recent years as one of the formation mechanisms of pain in CP. In the treatment of neuropathic pain, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and anticonvul - sants are used. Although there are no data on the effec - tiveness of antidepressants in CP, they can be used as adjuvant therapy from the early stages based on indirect evidence. By adding them, it may be possible to reduce the opioid dose, and they can also help patients to cope with pain. In a study conducted by Olesen et al. (207), the effect of pregabalin, which is an anticonvulsant, was in - vestigated in the treatment of pain in patients with CP. It has been shown that pregabalin used in addition to analgesic treatments is superior to placebo and helps to reduce opioid dose. Drug-related side effects were ob - served in 91% of patients, but most of these side effects were mild or moderate and well tolerated by patients. Successful results have not been achieved with leukot - riene receptor antagonists (208) and tetrahydrocannab - inol (209) in the treatment of pain in CP. Similarly, short- term inhibition of pancreatic secretion with octreotide was not effective in pain palliation (210). Question F2-b: Is PERT used in pain treatment? Suggestion F2-b: PERT has no effect on pain. In patients with EPI, PERT may have a beneficial effect on bloating. (Level of evidence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong con - sensus) Comment: CCK and pancreatic secretions are also thought to play a role in the occurrence of pain in CP. Active proteases can be effective in pain palliation by reducing the level of CCK and pancreatic secretion in the duodenum. Activated serine protease can reach the duodenum only with uncoated tablets. According to a meta-analysis involving five studies, PERT treat - ment has no effect on pain in CP (211). The longest use of PERT in these studies is 4 months. In the study performed by Isaksson et al. (212), uncoated PERT was used, and it was reported to be effective on pain. In pa - tients with EPI, the complaints (such as bloating, gas, or cramping) because of malabsorption can be reduced with PERT treatment. Question F2-c: Where can antioxidant therapy be used? Suggestion F2-c: Antioxidants can be tried in patients whose pain is difficult to be treated. (Level of evidence: 1A; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Antioxidants seem to be beneficial in the treatment of pain in CP according to numerous studies and five meta-analyses (213-217). However, there is het- erogeneity between both patient populations included in the studies and formulations of the antioxidants used. In addition, side effects such as allergy, headache, nausea, vomiting, rash, dyspepsia, and abdominal pain because of antioxidants have been reported. The longest period of use of antioxidants in the studies is 6 months, and there are no data on their reliability in longer use. Therefore, routine use of antioxidants in CP pain is not recommend- ed. However, they can be added to the existing treatment in patients who have difficulty in pain management. Question F3-a: What are the indications of endoscopic treatment in CP? Suggestion F3-a: Endoscopic treatment is indicated for the treatment of pain and complications. If the main pancreatic duct is dilated because of stricture and/or ob- struction by a stone, endoscopic treatment should be the first choice. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Pain and complications are the indications of endoscopic treatment in CP. Pseudocyst, walled-off ne - crosis, ascites, pleural effusion owing to pancreatic duct leakage, and biliary and duodenal obstruction because of inflammatory compression are among the complications that can be treated using various endoscopic methods. In patients with uncomplicated pain, endoscopic treatment should be the first choice if the main pancreatic duct is dilated because of stricture and/or obstruction by a stone located in the head and/or body of the pancreas (81, 218). Question F3-b: How is endoscopic treatment of main pancreatic duct stones performed? Suggestion F3-b: Most of the stones obstructing the main pancreatic duct can be extracted by ERCP alone using the standard stone removal equipment after pancreatic sphincterotomy if they are small in size (<5 mm), low in number, and located at the head or body of the pancreas, and if there is no associated downstream stricture. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Main pancreatic duct stones can be extract - ed using ERCP, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy S15 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee (ESWL), or both. After pancreatic sphincterotomy, at - tempts to extract stones using the standard stone re - moval equipment, such as balloon and baskets, will fail in up to 90% of patients (219-222). A retrospective study revealed that mechanical lithotripsy for pancreatic stones was associated with three times higher complications than biliary stones (11.6% and 3.6%, respectively) (223). Endoscopic treatment success rate increases when the stones are low (≤3) in number, ≤10 mm in diameter, not impacted, and located at the head and/or body of the pancreas without an associated downstream stricture (224). On the basis of these results, ERCP alone is rec - ommended for the extraction of stones small in size (≤5 mm in diameter), low in number, and located at the head or body of the pancreas. Question F3-b1: When should ESWL be used? Suggestion F3-b1: ESWL alone is an effective method for the treatment of main pancreatic duct stones in expe - rienced centers. Radiopaque obstructive stones ≥5 mm are first fragmented with ESWL and then extracted using endoscopy. (Level of evidence: 2; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: ESWL fragments pancreatic stones and fa - cilitates their endoscopic removal. A meta-analysis of 11 studies, published in 2010, revealed an 89% success rate of ESWL for fragmenting main pancreatic duct stones (225). A recent meta-analysis of 27 studies showed that ESWL alone or combined with ERCP achieved complete clearance of pancreatic ducts in 70% of patients, and 52% remained pain free within 2 years of follow-up (226). In patients with uncomplicated painful CP with ≥5 mm radiopaque stones obstructing the main pancreatic duct, it is recommended to start treatment with ESWL and extract the remaining stone fragments by ERCP if spon - taneous clearance does not occur (222). A comprehen - sive literature review of studies reporting the outcomes of ESWL treatment showed that ESWL was an effective

of treatment and fragmented 58% to 100% of the stones. When combined with ERCP, 41% to 89% of the main pancreatic duct stones can be completely ex - tracted, and during a follow-up longer than 24 months, pain relief could be achieved in 38% to 93% of patients, whereas 34% to 79% remained pain free (93, 221, 227- 263). Factors favoring complete clearance of stones by endoscopy after ESWL were the presence of a single and low-density stone(s) (<820 Hounsfield units), absence of main pancreatic duct stricture, insertion of a pancreat - ic stent before the procedure, and use of secretin during the first ESWL session (225, 236, 237, 239, 243, 252, 253, 255, 261). Long-term pain response after treatment was higher in patients who had a short disease duration and low frequency of attacks before treatment, stone(s) located at the head of the pancreas, complete clearance of the main pancreatic duct after the procedures, no stricture or stricture resolved after treatment, steator - rhea, and never smoked or quit smoking (220, 227-229, 233, 235-237, 243, 247, 249). Pain relapse after ESWL alone or combined therapy was usually observed within the first 2 years after treatment (230, 237, 238). Three retrospective studies revealed that 49% to 75% of pancreatic duct stones can be completely removed with ESWL alone (245, 255, 256). There is only one prospec - tive randomized study (n=55) comparing the efficacy of ESWL and ESWL plus ERCP. Although there was no sig - nificant difference in pain recurrence (42% and 45%, respectively) during the 52-month follow-up period, du - ration of hospitalization and cost were higher in the com- bined group (238). Another retrospective study (n=146) compared patients who underwent ESWL alone with those who received combined treatment and found no difference in terms of pain relief at the end of 6-month follow-up (250). When ESWL is performed in well-estab- lished centers, approximately 70% of the fragmented stones spontaneously pass through the pancreatic orifice to the duodenum (256). On the basis of these results, ESWL alone may be reasonable for the treatment of main pancreatic duct stones in experienced centers, and this approach was found to be more cost-effective than sys - tematically performing ERCP after ESWL in all patients to extract possible residual, small, main pancreatic duct stone fragments (222). The contraindications of ESWL include uncorrected co - agulation disorders; pregnancy; and presence of bone, calcified aneurysm, or lung tissue on the path of shock - wave. It is not indicated in patients with extensive stones located throughout the main pancreatic duct, isolated stones at the tail of the pancreas, mass in the head of the pancreas, moderate or massive amount of ascites, and in those who had more than one main pancreatic duct stric- ture (222, 257). ESWL is a relatively safe procedure. When used alone or in combination with ERCP, the most com - mon complication is acute pancreatitis. A recently pub - lished prospective study including 1,470 ESWL plus ERCP procedures reported a 6.7% total rate of complications, namely pancreatitis, hemorrhage, infection, steinstrasse, and perforation. Out of these, 1.1% were moderate or se- vere. In addition, 21% of the patients had transient side S16 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 effects such as hematuria, asymptomatic hyperamylase- mia, and GI mucosal damage (248). Question F3-b2: Does intraductal laser or electrohy - draulic lithotripsy have a role in the treatment of main pancreatic duct stones? Suggestion F3-b2: Intraductal laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy is a treatment choice that can be used alone or after failure of ESWL. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: There are a limited number of studies about the efficacy of intraductal laser or electrohydraulic litho - tripsy for the treatment of main pancreatic duct stones. Most of these studies are small case series and reported that complete clearance of the main pancreatic duct can be achieved in 43% to 100% by using different methods and equipment for lithotripsy (258-268). Depending on the experience of the clinic, intraductal laser or electrohy- draulic lithotripsy can be used before ESWL or after fail - ure of ESWL. A multicenter study reported that the only factor associated with technical failure was the presence of a main pancreatic duct stricture (266). Randomized, prospective studies are needed to compare their efficacy with ESWL. Question F3-c: How should main pancreatic duct stric - tures be treated? Suggestion F3-c: After dilating the dominant stricture with a balloon, bougie, or Soehendra stent retriever, it is recommended to insert a 10 French (F) plastic stent to the main pancreatic duct, if technically possible. (Level of evidence: 3; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: A multicenter retrospective study reported that main pancreatic duct stricture was observed in 79% of 1,000 patients with CP who underwent endoscopic treatment (269). Dominant stricture is defined when at least one of the following criteria is present: upstream main pancreatic duct diameter ≥6 mm, inability of con - trast medium delivered from a 6F catheter advanced to the upstream main pancreatic duct to flow into the dis - tal pancreatic duct, and pain during the infusion of saline through a nasopancreatic drain inserted to the upstream main pancreatic duct (270). Dominant stricture of the main pancreatic duct is di - lated by inserting single or multiple plastic stents. Malignancy should be excluded by imaging methods and brush cytology before the dilatation treatment. During the ERCP procedure, the main pancreatic duct is cannulated first, and afterward, pancreatography is obtained to identify the length and location of the stricture. Pancreatic sphincterotomy is performed lat - er. Biliary sphincterotomy can be performed for the treatment of concomitant biliary pathology or to facili - tate pancreatic duct cannulation (271). Tight strictures are dilated by a balloon, bougie, or Soehendra stent retriever before stenting. Finally, a 10F plastic stent is inserted across the stricture, if technically possible, with its tip extending to the upstream dilatation. A ret - rospective study revealed that patients who received stents ≤8.5F were more likely to require hospitalization because of abdominal pain than those who received a 10F stent (272). The clinical response is evaluated 6-8 weeks after the procedure. A comprehensive review of studies reporting the out - comes of stent dilatation treatment for main pancreat - ic duct strictures showed that 5-12F stents were used, and technical success varied between 81% and 100%. Of 25 studies, stents were exchanged at regular inter - vals (2-5 months) in 14, whereas they were exchanged on demand in five studies. In nine studies, the average stenting duration was 1 year or longer. Early pain re - sponse was observed in 70% to 100% of patients after a single plastic stent insertion (218, 242, 273-294). In the long term (14 months-7.1 years), pain recurred in most patients, and complete or partial permanent pain relief could be achieved in 32% to 90% of them. In pa - tients who had a minimum stenting duration of 1 year, permanent pain reduction was observed in 51% to 80% of those with an average follow-up period of less than 5 years and in 62% to 80% of those with an average follow-up period of at least 5 years. In the same group, the need for surgery was 14% to 31% in patients with an average follow-up of less than 5 years, whereas it was 0% to 7.5% in those with a minimum average fol - low-up of 5 years (218, 274, 277, 280, 289, 291, 294). Factors favoring long-term pain response were absence of continuous pain before treatment, absence of daily narcotics use, short disease duration before treatment, absence of PD, absence of pain just before the proce - dure, no smoking, quitting alcohol, insertion of a 12F stent during treatment, resolution of the stricture after treatment, and improvement in the main duct diame - ter after treatment (275, 277, 278, 284, 285, 291, 293). Complications such as pancreatitis (6.3%), sphincterot - omy bleeding (0.9%), sepsis (0.6%), cholangitis (0.4%), abscess (0.2%), stent migration (3.1%), and changes in the pancreatic duct (0.8%) may be observed during stenting treatment. S17 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Question F3-c1: How are patients followed up with after stent insertion? Suggestion F3-c1: In patients with clinical response, it is recommended to exchange the stent when symptoms develop or findings of stent dysfunction are noticed in imaging methods, which should be performed no later than 6 months. Total duration of stenting should be at least 1 year. Stent exchange interval should not exceed 1 year. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: There are different opinions in the literature about the exchange interval of pancreatic stents. Most of the studies recommend to exchange stents within 3 months because most of them are occluded within this time (242, 275, 276, 280, 282, 285, 286, 288-290, 292, 295). However, some studies suggest to exchange stents on demand, when pain recurs or recurrent dilatation in the main pancreatic duct develops (274, 277, 282, 284, 287). In the latter, it is recommended to follow-up with patients every 1-6 months with abdominal USG, abdominal X-ray, s-MRCP, and blood and urine amylase for the detection of signs of stent dysfunction, as stent dysfunction is not al- ways correlated with pain. Infectious complications such as pancreatic juice infection, abscess, and pancreatic sep- sis can develop in 6.7% of patients during on-demand stent exchange strategy (274, 277, 279, 284, 287, 292). In patients with clinical response, stenting duration should be at least 1 year. If a 6F catheter can be easily advanced through the stricture and the contrast medium injected to the upstream from the stricture can adequately flow into the duodenum within 1-2 minutes, treatment can be terminated. Patients with symptomatic persistent or recurrent dominant strictures after 1 year of treatment should be evaluated for treatment with multiple plastic stents, metallic stents, or surgery. Absence of pain during the year following stent removal can be considered as long-term clinical success (284). Question F3-c2: In which situations are multiple plas - tic stents or self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) used? Suggestion F3-c2: Symptomatic patients whose steno - sis continues or recurs at the end of treatment are eval - uated for multiple plastic stents or full covered SEMSs (FC-SEMSs). (Level of evidence: 3B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: The recommended method for endoscop - ic treatment of CP is the placement of a plastic stent (222). Plastic stents, however, become clogged, so they require replacement from time to time. Recurrence is common when they are left stent-free because they pro- vide a remodeling just as much as their diameter (296). Two methods can be applied to overcome these prob - lems. One method is to increase the number of plastic stents and to enlarge the opening to be formed in this way. There is one study on multiple plastic stent applica- tion in the treatment of CP-related stenosis (297). In this study, to treat pancreatic duct stenosis in 19 patients, an average of three 8.5-11.5F stents were inserted, and they were removed after 6-12 months. Symptomatic stricture recurrence was reported as 10.5% at a mean follow-up of 38 months. The second method is to use FC-SEMSs. Be- cause these stents have large diameters, their openings are greater. Uncoated metal stents were used in the pan- creatic duct, and despite the immediate improvement in pain, recurrent stricture developed because of epithelial hyperplasia (298). For this reason, it is preferred that the stent used is completely covered. The fastest development in the endoscopic treatment of CP has been related to FC-SEMS, and many studies have been published recently on this subject (299-309). Most of these studies are retrospective case series, and some are pilot studies to find the ideal stent design. All of the patients included in the studies were patients refracto - ry to plastic stent treatment. Stents in various lengths (3-10 cm), diameters (6-10 mm), and designs have been used with 100% technical success from major or minor papillae. Generally, they are planned to be removed in 2-6 months, but patients whose stents were kept for 10 months have also been reported. The stent was success- fully removed in all patients. The main side effect in the early period is temporary pain, which can usually last for days. There may also be cholestasis because of pancre - atitis and metal stent compression. To prevent cholesta- sis, either a biliary sphincterotomy or insertion of a stent in the biliary system is recommended. It is doubtful that the pancreatitis attack is associated with the stent; it is thought to be related to the bougie or balloon dilatation performed before the procedure. It is known that most of them have a mild course. The long-term problem is the development of new (de novo) stenosis caused by migra- tion and stent. It is observed that the migration rate has decreased with the new stent designs. De novo steno - sis development could be reduced by choosing thinner stents such as 6-8 mm, suitable for pancreatic duct di - ameter. It is reported that these stenoses are short seg - ments and easily respond to dilatation and plastic stent treatment. The rates of pain reduction, stricture reso - S18 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 lution, and regression in upstream dilation are high with FC-SEMS. It is reported that it facilitates the removal of stones in the pancreatic duct, as the stenosis improves significantly (310). The frequency of pain owing to recur- rent stenosis does not appear to be very high after leaving stent-free (299-309). According to these results, the use of pancreatic FC- SEMS seems very promising. There is a need for studies that are used as primary treatment methods compared with multiple plastic stents. Metal stents should be de - veloped to prevent migration and de novo stricture de - velopment. Until then, FC-SEMSs can be used in patients refractory to plastic stent. Question F3-d: Under what guidance can EUS-pancre - atic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) be used? Suggestion F3-d: It can be applied in patients in whom ERCP has failed and who are not suitable for surgery. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong con - sensus) Comment: Although ERCP is successful in most of the pa- tients whose pancreatic ducts will be intervened, the pan- creatic duct cannot be entered for various reasons in 3% to 10% of patients (257). EUS-PDD has been described as a rescue technique in patients whose papilla cannot be reached and in whom the pancreas duct cannot be cannu- lated despite reaching or passed because of the stenosis. EUS-PDD includes pancreatography and pancreatic duct drainage. Drainage can be applied transgastrically, tran - senterically, or transpapillary (anastomotic) by antegrade or retrograde route. It is also possible to remove stones in the pancreatic duct with this method. The stones can be removed from the newly created path, pushed from the papilla or anastomosis, or broken in the pancreatic duct. EUS-PDD is an alternative to surgery because the morbidi- ty of surgical treatment methods is higher than that of en- doscopic ones (311, 312). Studies comparing the method with surgical treatment are needed. Most studies on EUS-PDD are case series and are ret - rospective. These studies focused on the technique of the procedure, its early effectiveness, and complications (313-338). Patient groups do not include patients with CP alone. Therefore, no special comment can be made for CP. However, it is observed that technique and acces- sories have improved, and technical success and effec - tiveness are increasing. Side effects reported in the early period include pain requiring hospitalization, pancreati - tis, abscess, perforation, and bleeding. Stent migration or dysfunction may occur. In this case, the stent can be placed from the same place, and repetition of the proce- dure may be required (311, 312). Complications are com- parable to those in surgery. EUS-PDD seems to be an effective and safe procedure in pancreatic diseases. It requires both ERCP and EUS ex - perience. There are also some difficulties; the pancreatic duct is thin, it is necessary to pass through the hard pan- creatic tissue, the guide wire is inserted relatively short - ly into the pancreatic duct, and there are no accessories produced for this aim (312). Question F4: Which method should be applied for celiac plexus blockade (CB)/neurolysis (CN)? Suggestion F4: CB/CN can be applied under EUS, fluo - roscopy, or CT guidance. However, EUS-guided CB (EUS- CB) provides longer pain palliation than CT- or fluoros - copy-guided procedures. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Moderate consensus) Comment: Because opiates used in pain control in CP have side effects such as sedation, Oddi sphincter spasm, and constipation, different methods have been devel - oped for pain management. The process to block the sympathetic nerve ganglia, which carry the pain sensa - tion from the pancreas (nociception) to the brain with af- ferent nerves and located in the celiac plexus region us - ing local anesthetics or corticosteroids, is called CB. The same process performed by injecting alcohol in the same region is named CN (339). Both CB and CN decrease the pain of pancreatic origin. Although pain control is temporary in CB, theoretically the function of the celiac plexus is permanently termi - nated by chemical ablation in CN (340). Although per - forming CN in CP may potentially interfere with future pancreatic operation by inducing fibrosis, CB does not have such an adverse effect. Therefore, CB is preferred in patients with CP and CN is preferred in patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer. Depending on the expertise of the practicing physician and the facilities of the center, CB/CN can be performed under the guidance of EUS, fluoroscopy, or CT (341, 342). Although it was initially started to be performed under fluoroscopy, EUS-CB is increasingly used because of the better view of the celiac region with EUS. In a prospective randomized study comparing EUS- and CT-guided CB (CT-CB), EUS-CB provided more effective and prolonged pain palliation than CT-CB, along with fewer numbers of S19 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee process-related discomfort (343). In a study comparing fluoroscopy-guided CB with EUS-CB, EUS-CB decreased pain in 70% of patients, whereas fluoroscopic percuta - neous CB decreased pain only in 30% of patients. As a result, EUS in pain control in CP was found to be superior to the method performed under fluoroscopy (341). Gress et al. (344) reported a reduction in pain scores in 55% of patients who underwent EUS-CB. In these patients, it was shown that the mean pain scores (when evaluat - ed over a scale of 10 points) decreased from 8 to 2 both at the fourth and eighth weeks after EUS-CB. Pain loss lasting more than 12 weeks was observed in 26% of all patients (344). Although EUS-CB has been used for the treatment of pain in patients with CP for many years, there are only a few articles on this subject, with no placebo-controlled studies, and the number of cases included in the studies is relatively low (345). When two published meta-analy - ses were considered, it was noteworthy that almost half of the patient data they included came from abstracts and both studies used a mostly shared patient pool. A to- tal of 376 and 221 patients, respectively, were included in these two meta-analyses conducted by Puli et al. (346) and Kaufman et al. (347) and the CB procedure was shown to be effective at 59% and 51%, respectively. In another recent study, 76% of 248 patients with CP who underwent EUS-CB were provided sustained pain control for 10 (range, 1-54) weeks (348). Instead of making a general injection into the celiac re - gion, it was thought that finding celiac ganglia by EUS and applying CB directly to the ganglia would be more successful. In this way, 64 patients with ganglion injec - tion were evaluated 1 week after the procedure, and it was observed that pain palliation was achieved in 50% of the patients (349). However, it is not always possible to identify the ganglia lined up with hypoechoic, small rosa- ry beads with EUS. According to the experience obtained from the CN study conducted later in cadavers, it has been concluded that injection of both sides of the celiac region and with high volume is more effective than trying to visualize the ganglia, because alcohol will spread to the celiac region anyway (350, 351). However, it is still unclear whether the injection will be made bilaterally or centrally, because another study re - ported that the success of both methods was indistin - guishable (352). LeBlanc et al. (352) compared the ef - fectiveness of injection into one or two different sites of the celiac trunk level in the same procedure. In the study in which 50 patients with CP were included, 60% of pa - tients reported an average of 51 days of pain reduction, and no difference was found between the time and dura- tion of pain palliation between the two techniques (352). A similar study was performed in patients with pancre - atic cancer for the procedure of CN under the guidance of EUS, and no difference was found between the two

(353). The effectiveness of repetitive EUS-CB in CP for pain relief was investigated in a retrospective study. In this study, EUS-CB was performed an average of 3.1 times, and it was stated that it was safe to repeat the procedure. Criteria for good prognosis to EUS-CB procedures after the first procedure were advanced age at the first EUS- CB and a positive response to the first EUS-CB (348). In this study, mild side effects were generally described af - ter the EUS-CB procedure. These are usually self-healing complications owing to the blocking of sympathetic ef - ferent nerves such as hypoxia, hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, and diarrhea during or immediately after the procedure. The procedure should be performed under an- tibiotic prophylaxis, as local infection may develop rarely at the injection site. Serious complications, although rare, can be seen with CB. These are usually infectious com - plications such as retroperitoneal abscess and empyema. Serious complications such as ischemic or vascular inju - ries, retroperitoneal bleeding, paraplegia, and spinal cord injuries have been reported with CN. Fatal complications in the form of case reports have also been described in the literature (354). Performing CB or CN under the guidance of EUS results in much less complication development than other percutaneous methods. The complication rate was 1.8% in a series where 189 EUS-CBs and 31 EUS-CNs were applied to patients with CP and pancreatic cancer, and it was concluded that EUS-CB and EUS-CN were safe (355). Question F5: Which patients should be directed to sur - gery? Suggestion F5: Patients who have failed endoscopic treatment for pain or are not candidates for endoscopic treatment and do not respond to medical treatment for pain are candidates for surgical treatment. (Evidence lev- el: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Recurrent and persistent pain is the leading indication for endoscopic and surgical intervention in CP (356). The idea of reducing parenchymal hyperten - sion because of pancreatic duct obstruction, which is included in the pathophysiology of pain, is the rationale S20 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 of endoscopic and surgical treatments. If the endoscop- ic treatments that provide channel decompression such as sphincterotomy, stone removal, narrow segment di - lation, or stent placement provide only temporary relief or fail, a surgical approach for decompression will be appropriate (357). In two prospective randomized con - trolled trials comparing surgical and endoscopic treat - ments, and in the Cochrane review examining them, surgical treatments were found to be more successful in mid- and long-term pain control than endoscopic treat - ments. A surgical approach may be preferred primarily in the presence of an inflammatory mass at the head of the pancreas, in the presence of stenosis in the biliary tract and/or duodenum, or when malignancy cannot be excluded (242, 280, 358). Early surgery has been shown to be superior to surgery at an advanced stage of the dis- ease in ensuring long-term pain control (359-361). Pain duration being shorter than 3 years, not using opioid in the preoperative period, and the number of endoscopic interventions being fewer than five are factors that pos- itively affect pain control (359). Yang et al. (360) found that surgical treatment was more successful in patients having a duration between the diagnosis of CP and sur - gery shorter than 26.5 months than the longer ones. In a recent study, it was revealed that early surgery (no more than 3 years since diagnosis) provides better pain control, and exocrine and endocrine functions are bet - ter preserved in these patients (361). The results of the first randomized controlled prospective study (ESCAPE) comparing early surgery with step therapy in pain control in CP are expected (362). Types of operations applied in pain treatment in CP can be defined as decompression purpose drainage operations and resection operations. Puestow longitudinal pancre - atojejunostomy and Frey operation (distal and proximal longitudinal pancreatojejunostomy) are drainage oper - ations, and Whipple operation (pancreaticoduodenec - tomy), duodenum-sparing Beger and Berne operations (pancreatic head resection), and distal pancreatectomy are surgical methods aimed at resection (363, 364). Question F6-a: When is PERT applied? Suggestion F6-a: PERT should be initiated immediately upon diagnosis of any patient with EPI. (Level of evidence: 1B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: The overall goal of EPI therapy is to normalize digestion to improve survival and quality of life. PERT is recommended to patients with the diagnosis of CP who developed EPI and in the presence of clinical symptoms (weight loss, fatty stool, diarrhea, and dyspepsia) and/or laboratory findings (level of fat-soluble vitamins [vitamins A, D, E, and K], prealbumin, magnesium, etc.) associated with malabsorption (185). It is aimed to correct the signs and symptoms of malabsorption detected by treatment, to decrease the mortality and morbidity associated with this, and to improve survival and quality of life (137). If symptoms are certain, the patient can benefit from 4-6 weeks of PERT (365). Therefore, PERT should be applied to every patient with CP with EPI (185, 189, 366, 367). Question F6-b: How is PERT performed? Suggestion F6-b: PERT is recommended to be taken with enteric-coated, micro- or mini-microspheres in <2 mm size, initiated with the first bite of food at a dose of 40,000-50,000 European Pharmacopoeia (Ph Eur) units and taken in half the dose for snacks. (Level of evidence: 1B; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: For the ideal PERT, pancreatic enzymes should be met at a sufficient level, when and where necessary. Dose adjustment is based on lipase activity. When lipase released from the pancreas into the duodenum after a standard meal in physiological conditions is less than 10% of normal, fat digestion is impaired and steatorrhea observed (368). The minimum amount of lipase required for normal digestion is at least 30,000 international units (IU) (365, 368, 369, 370). Enzyme activity is evaluated in different units by different institutions. These units are Ph Eur, Fédération Internationale Pharmaceutique (FIP), and United States Pharmacopeia (USP). The amylase and protease units of these three units differ among them - selves. Whereas 1 FIP unit for amylase equals 1 Ph Eur unit or 4.15 USP units, for protease, 1 FIP unit equals 62.5 USP units or 1 Ph Eur unit. However, this does not differ for lipase. In other words, 1 FIP unit for lipase, 1 Ph Eur unit, and 1 USP unit are equal. The efficiency of the prepa - rations can be evaluated by assuming that 1 IU lipase is equal to 3 Ph Eur (371). In ideal PERT, >30,000 Ph Eur units of lipase is intended to be <2 mm particle size considering the gastric motil - ity and pyloric channel kinetics for homogeneous meet - ing with nutrients in the duodenum after meal. For this, pancreatic enzyme preparations are in the form of enter- ic-coated mini-microspheres (1-1.2 mm) or microspheres (1.8-2.0 mm). There are insufficient data on micro or mini tablets >2 mm. Although there are studies showing that the transition of mini-microspheres with nutrients to the duodenum is better than microspheres, there are not enough data to show its superiority (372). S21 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Enzymes are inactivated at a pH of <5.5. Therefore, preparations should be enteric-coated to protect en - zymes from stomach acid (373). Preparations that are not enteric-coated are less effective (374). Different enteric-coated microspheres are not bioequivalent in vitro, and there are not enough clinical studies describ - ing in vivo bioavailability. In in vitro studies, the dissolu - tion time of the preparations (49-71 minutes half-life) and their optimum pH (pH 5.0-5.8) vary (375, 376). In a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study, 10,000 Ph Eur unit microsphere and 10,000 Ph Eur unit mini-micro- sphere preparations were found to be equally effective in improving the coefficient of fat absorption (CFA) in patients with EPI because of CP. It was found that both preparations were well tolerated, and mild side effects (abdominal pain, headache, diarrhea, and infection) were similar in both treatment groups (377). In another ran - domized placebo-controlled study, the efficacy of Kreon 40,000 mini-microsphere tablets in EPI was investigat - ed, and CFA, coefficient of nitrogen absorption, and daily stool amounts were compared in the patients receiving treatment and the placebo group. The drug was found to be more effective than placebo and was well tolerated. In the drug group, complaints of abdominal pain and bloat - ing decreased (378). In recent randomized controlled tri- als, enteric-coated mini-microspheres are recommended to be taken at a dose of 40,000-80,000 Ph Eur units at main meals and half-dose in snacks (377, 379, 380-382). PERT has characteristics in terms of dosage and frequen- cy of application. It is recommended to be taken with the first bite at a meal. PERT is more effective when half of the dose is taken at the beginning and half of the dose at the middle of the meal. (380, 383). Question F6-c: How should the response be evaluated? Suggestion F6-c: The effectiveness of treatment is eval- uated by improvement in clinical findings, in laboratory parameters, and in the level of fecal fat excretion. (Level of evidence: 1B; Grade of recommendation: A) Comment: PERT is the corner stone of patient manage - ment with EPI. PERT provides a decrease in fecal fat ex - cretion, weight gain, improvement in abdominal pain, and improvement in clinical symptoms and laboratory findings owing to malabsorption without significant side effects in the patient (384, 385). Significant improvement in maldi- gestion and nutritional status was achieved with PERT at a dose of 24,000 IU administered in EPI developed because of CP and/or pancreatic surgery. Patients who received treat- ment improved clinical symptoms, increased body weight, and decreased stool frequency (386). In a study with micro- bial lipase in liquid formulation applied in patients who need to be fed with a nasogastric tube, an increase in stool con- sistency was achieved while bloating and a decrease in the amount of fecal fat (387). Although its effect on long-term survival in CP has not been studied, PERT is known to in- crease survival rates in patients with irreversible pancreatic cancer and after pancreatic surgery (368, 388). In patients who do not respond to treatment, pancreatic function tests (CFA or 13C-MTG breath test) should eval- uate the efficacy of the treatment and adequacy of the dose used (115, 366, 389). If fatty defecation continues with other clinical signs and laboratory findings related to malabsorption, the dose should be increased and PPI should be added if necessary. Suggestion F6-d: PPI may be recommended in addition to treatment for those who do not respond adequately to enzyme replacement therapy. (Level of evidence: 2B; Power of suggestion: Weak consensus) Comment: Pancreatic enzymes show their effects at maximum with a pH of >6. Their activities are signifi - cantly reduced at low pH. In duodenal acidification (gas - tric hyperacidity with or without diminished bicarbonate secretion), enzyme release from enzyme preparations decreases and activation of released enzymes decreas - es. With the use of drugs that inhibit the synthesis of stomach acid, gastric pH rises and the improvement of EPI symptoms can be increased by reducing the duode - nal acidification and ensuring the effectiveness of PERT. In patients with CP with resistant steatorrhea, the addi - tion of gastric acid blockers to PERT (373, 390) can be recommended. In one study, the effects of two different (10,000-20,000 IU) enteric-coated pancreatic enzyme preparations on fecal fat excretion and abdominal symp- toms were investigated in patients with CP-induced EPI with omeprazole gastric acid inhibition. As a result, it was found that the abdominal well-being score of PPI users increased, and there was a significant decrease in fecal fat excretion (391). In another study, it was found that PPIs especially increase fat absorption and decrease fatty stool (392). In another study comparing the H2 receptor blocker and PPI, no difference was found between the drugs in terms of fat excretion (393). In a study in which the use of PERT alone or together with the PPI/H2 recep- tor blocker in patients with EPI was analyzed retrospec - tively in terms of efficacy and safety, no difference was found between the groups in terms of CFA levels. As a result, it has been shown that concomitant use of PERT S22 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 and PPI/H2 receptor blocker drugs does not increase PERT efficacy in the population of patients with EPI, and therefore, it is recommended that acid inhibitors should not be routinely co-administered with PERT (394). Question F7: What should be considered in the treat - ment of pancreatogenic diabetes? Suggestion F7: In patients with mild hyperglycemia (HbA1c < 8), metformin should be added to the treatment in ad - dition to lifestyle change and pancreatic enzyme support. Insulin should be added for patients with severe hypergly- cemia (HbA1c ≥ 8) or inadequate response to basal met - formin therapy. In particular, one should be careful in terms of hypoglycemia when using insulin. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Weak consensus) Comment: CP can include glucose intolerance, DM, and metabolic disorders. DM developing secondary to CP is called pancreatogenic DM (130). The purpose of pan - creatogenic DM therapy is to prevent malnutrition, control the steator, and reduce meal-induced hyperglycemia. With PERT, an increase in insulin secretion and postprandial gly- cemia secondary to an increase in hormone incretin can be achieved. In addition, loss of fat-soluble vitamins can be prevented with enzyme support (28, 130, 395). There are no studies showing the long-term efficacy and safety of hypoglycemic agents in CP. The main problem in pancreatogenic DM is insulin deficiency. Therefore, in most patients, insulin is the preferred treatment, but in patients with mild hyperglycemia (HbA1c < 8), hypergly - cemia can be brought under control with oral agents (es- pecially metformin). In patients with advanced hypergly - cemia (HbA1c ≥ 8), it is recommended to use insulin and for the insulin dose to be similar to type 1 DM guidelines (130, 396, 397). In a recent review, less and frequent feeding was recom - mended without skipping meals for pancreatogenic DM treatment. It has been found appropriate to give up al - cohol and smoking and to avoid liquid drinks with a high glycemic index. After physical activity in patients who receive insulin and in patients with malnutrition and hy - poglycemic symptoms, glucose measurement should be done frequently. PERT treatment should also be given at the appropriate dose (135). Question F8: How should the approach to peripancreat- ic fluid collections be? Suggestion F8: Peripancreatic fluid collections occurring during the course of CP are approached as in acute pan - creatitis. Patients with pseudocysts can be monitored if they are not symptomatic, regardless of the size of the cyst. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC) develops in ap - proximately 13% to 30% of patients during the course of CP (398, 399). Classification of peripancreatic collec - tions is made according to the revised Atlanta criteria, which were last adopted in 2011 (400). PPCs can regress spontaneously or disappear. Spontaneous regression rate differs from study to study and varies from 20% to 70% (401, 402). Although PPC size and patient complaints are correlated, they can be monitored for spontaneous regression if they are not symptomatic (403). If the cyst formation is before 4-6 weeks and is asymptomatic, it can be said that a consensus has been reached about not intervening with the cysts (404). It is important to differ- entiate small pancreatic cysts from malignant pancreatic cysts. If the PPCs are complicated (compression to ab - dominal vessels, gastric outlet or duodenal obstruction, jaundice because of cholesterol compression, PPC infec- tion, development of hemorrhage in PPC, or pancreatico- pleural fistula) and symptomatic (abdominal distension, nausea, vomiting, and pain), an intervention is required. PPCs can be treated by percutaneous, endoscopic, or surgical (open, laparoscopic, or robotic) means. Endo - scopic treatment options have lower morbidity and mor- tality than other treatment options and are cost-effec - tive (405-410). Question F9-a: What are the treatment indications for biliary stenosis in CP? Suggestion F9-a: Endoscopic treatment is recommend - ed in the presence of cholangitis and jaundice. In as - ymptomatic cases, if the ALP is ≥2 times normal and/or continues for ≥1 month, endoscopic treatment is rec - ommended. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Benign biliary stenosis may develop because of the anatomical relationship of the main bile duct with the pancreatic head during the course of CP (411). The length of the intrapancreatic part of the choledoch var - ies from 1.5 to 6 cm, which can cause stenosis of vary - ing lengths (412). The frequency of biliary obstruction has been reported to be 3% to 46% in the course of CP (413). Symptoms of biliary obstruction can be clinically faint or symptomatic (cholangitis, jaundice, and choled - ocholithiasis). In approximately 7.3%, secondary biliary S23 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee cirrhosis may develop. In asymptomatic patients, biliary drainage is recommended if ALP is detected for more than 1 month because of biliary stenosis and is ≥2 times higher than normal (414). Question F9-b: What should be the stent preference? Suggestion F9-b: Use of multiple plastic stents or FC- SEMS is recommended. The use of a single plastic stent is not recommended because of treatment failure and a high risk of complication. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Moderate consensus) Comment: The use of a single plastic stent for endoscop- ic biliary drainage in patients with CP-related biliary ob - struction is not recommended because of low success, high recurrence, and complication rates in previous stud- ies (415-421). In studies conducted, biliary strictures are first dilated with a biliary bougie or balloon, and then mul- tiple plastic stents (mostly 5-6) are attached to the ste - nosis area (245, 421-423). It is recommended in the lit - erature to replace stents every 3 months (421, 424, 425). In a randomized controlled study, long-term success rates (92% and 90%, respectively) of FC-SEMS and mul- tiple plastic stents were found to be similar (423). FC- SEMS reintervention rate is lower, but stent migration can be encountered (426). In a meta-analysis performed by Khan et al. (420), FC- SEMS was compared with multiple plastic stents in terms of improvement of stenosis, recurrence, and side effects. With FC-SEMS, the cumulative stenosis improvement rate was 83%, and the stenosis recurrence rate was be - tween 15% and 17%. FC-SEMS is cost-effective and re - work rates are lower. It has been observed that the re - currence rate decreases as stenting time increases, and keeping the stent for less than 6 months is associated with a high recurrence rate. In those with short biliary ste- nosis (<20 mm), stenting may be more successful than in long ones (246). Question F9-c: When is the patient directed to surgery in the treatment of biliary stenosis? Suggestion F9-c: Surgery may be recommended in pa - tients who cannot respond after 1 year of stenting. (Level of evidence: 5; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Patients who have relapsed biliary obstruction after 1 year of endoscopic biliary drainage may be offered surgical treatment, or it may be decided to continue en - doscopic biliary drainage (427). However, there are in - sufficient data in the literature on this subject, and it has been seen in current studies that surgical indication and the selected surgical method vary from center to center. In a retrospective study comparing surgery with endo - scopic biliary drainage treatment, multiple plastic stents or metal stents were used for endoscopic biliary drainage. Patients who had multiple plastic stents were given an endoscopic control every 3 months, and stent replace - ment was achieved; the metal stents of the patients were replaced every 6 months. Surgical treatment was recom- mended for patients who developed recurrence after 12 months of follow-up, and endoscopic biliary drainage treatment was continued in patients who did not accept surgical treatment or had contraindications for surgery. At the end of the 2-year follow-up, the rate of patients still having good biliary drainage was 15% in the endo - scopic biliary drainage group, whereas this rate was 66% in those with surgical biliary drainage (422). Question F10: How should thrombotic complications be followed and treated? Suggestion F10: Follow-up is recommended in asymp - tomatic patients who develop SVT on CP background. In acute thrombosis, anticoagulation may be considered in patients where collaterals do not develop and if they are not contraindicated. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of sug - gestion: Strong consensus) Comment: SVT is relatively common in CP cases. In these cases, the most important reasons leading to the deci - sion of treatment are potential gastroesophageal varice - al bleeding risk and, to a lesser extent, issues because of hypersplenism such as anemia, fatigue, and abdominal mass (splenomegaly). In times when endovascular inter - ventions haven’t been established in clinical practice yet, splenectomy could be applied even in asymptomatic pa - tients. However, in the natural course of these patients, the need for splenectomy decreases with the relatively low incidence of GI system bleeding (4%) and effective treatment of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding with endoscopic hemostatic techniques. Therefore, follow-up is recommended in asymptomatic patients (428, 429). Sclerosanes and cyanoacrylate are used in the treatment of gastric varices that have a lower bleeding risk but have more severe bleeding and higher mortality rates than esophageal varices (430, 431). Cyanoacrylate injection and coil applications, accompanied by EUS, which facili - tate access to mediastinal and abdominal vessels, are in - creasingly used with high success and low complication rates, alone or in combination (432-437). S24 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 In patients who underwent pancreatic surgery with - out splenectomy, the resolution rate in thrombus is low (<40%), and the rate of development of variceal bleeding (29%) is higher than the risk of bleeding in the natural course (15%) (438). Moreover, the addition of splenec - tomy to surgery does not cause a significant increase in morbidity and mortality and prevents variceal bleeding in patients with CP who will undergo pancreatic surgery and have splenic venous thrombosis (439, 440). For this rea- son, adding splenectomy for patients who will undergo surgery for other reasons, those who have gastroesopha- geal variceal bleeding, or patients who have an increased risk of bleeding will benefit the patient. There are insufficient data on the use of anticoagulant therapy in thrombosis accompanied by pancreatitis. Gastric variceal bleeding has been reported, especially in cases of aggressive anticoagulation therapies. How - ever, it should be kept in mind that thrombosis is a life-threatening and more dangerous complication than bleeding (439). In one study, thrombophilia was detect - ed in 18% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis (73% CP) with extrahepatic portal venous thrombosis. In this study, recanalization was observed only in 19% of patients (8/41 patients) with recent thrombosis, and 62.5% (5/8 patients) of them were reported to use an - ticoagulant therapy (441). In other studies, it was con - cluded that the use of anticoagulants in patients with acute pancreatitis in the treatment of splanchnic and non-splanchnic venous thrombosis in the acute throm - botic episode does not increase bleeding risk and mor - tality compared with those who do not use anticoagu - lants; however, it was concluded that it had no significant effect on recanalization rates (442-444). Anticoagulant therapy is not recommended in these patients, because there is not enough study on the efficacy and risk of an - ticoagulant therapy in patients with CP accompanied by thrombosis. However, based on the results of studies involving patients with acute pancreatitis and previous experience, anticoagulant therapy can be decided based on the duration of thrombosis and the general health of the patient. Anticoagulant therapy can be applied in pa - tients with acute venous thrombosis who do not have collaterals and have no contraindications for anticoagu - lant use, paying attention to the risk of bleeding (espe - cially in the presence of a pseudocyst). Question F11: How should a pseudoaneurysm be treated? Suggestion F11: Angiography and arterial embolization should be performed to stop pseudoaneurysm bleeding. Surgery is recommended for unstable patients and cas - es where arterial embolization fails. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: In patients who develop a pseudoaneurysm be- cause of CP, timely and proper treatment is important be- cause of the risk of life-threatening bleeding. There are no randomized, controlled, and prospective studies in the liter- ature. There is a systematic review on this subject between 1995 and 2012, which generally includes retrospective stud- ies, mostly single-center and observational studies (445). In the years with low embolization experience, surgical treatment was recommended as the first-line treat - ment because the success rate was lower (20% versus 88.9%, respectively) and mortality was the same (33% versus 33%, respectively) (170, 446). However, except for early studies, outcomes in surgical and non-surgical interventions were similar, and mortality was found to be higher in surgical groups (50%-100%) than embolization treatments (13%-50%). In recent studies, it is seen that embolization is the first-line treatment (46%-92%) with modern minimally invasive interventional methods, and surgical treatment is applied in unsuccessful emboliza - tions or hemodynamically unstable patients (445). The success rate with angioembolization varies according to the bleeding location (80% in pancreatic head circumfer- ence bleedings and 50% in the splenic artery), an average of 67%, but the success rate increased to 95% between 2000 and 2005. The recommended treatment method in hemodynamically stable patients with CP with bleeding pseudoaneurysm is immediately performing an angiogra- phy to detect the bleeding site and, if possible, emboli - zation. Angioembolization and then endoscopic drainage with ERCP have a high chance of success in patients with CP with pseudoaneurysm in the presence of a pseudo - cyst (447). Endovascular metallic coil and stents are used frequently and with high success in the treatment of pseudoaneurysm. In the absence of treatment, mortality approaches 90% (448). As another method, direct thrombin injection into the pseudoaneurysm by entering from the femoral artery reaches a success rate of 97%. There are few case reports or series where EUS-guided glue injection and coil embo- lization were applied alone or in combination in the treat- ment of CP-associated pseudoaneurysm bleeding (176, 449-451). Although data are limited, it is a promising technique. It can be used safely as a first-line treatment option with high technical and clinical success rates, es - pecially in cases that cannot be reached endovascularly and in patients with high surgical risk (452). S25 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee In patients with surgical indications, embolization can be applied as a bridge therapy in the interim period until ap- propriate conditions are established. In hemodynamically unstable cases, surgery is indicated if embolization is not possible or fails, but perioperative morbidity (bleeding) is high. Emergency hemostatic surgery is performed in patients who undergo surgery because of hemodynam - ic disorder, according to the general condition and ana - tomical condition of the patient (vascular ligation in the head of the pancreas, distal resection if there is bleeding in the splenic artery or its branches). Partial pancreatic re- section is more reliable only in preventing recurrence of hemorrhage compared with surgical intervention control of the bleeding vessel. Whether embolized or operated, recurrent embolization can be performed for recurrent bleeding (178, 447, 453). Question G1-a: What are the risk factors for pancreatic cancer development with a background of CP? Suggestion G1-a: Advanced age, smoking, alcohol use over 80 g/day, and hereditary and tropical pancreatitis are risk factors for cancer development in these patients. (Level of evidence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: The etiology of pancreatic cancer is not de - fined clearly yet. Hereditary pancreatitis is strongly linked to pancreatic cancer. Tobacco or alcohol use and high body mass index are other risk factors for pancreatic cancer in the general population (454). Zhang et al. (455) first reported the relationship between CP and pancreatic cancer. There are scanty amount of studies to define risk factors of those patients with CP to develop pancreatic cancer (456-461). These studies showed advanced age, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption (>80 g/day) as sig- nificant risk factors (454). In fact, all causes of CP may also be considered as risk factors for pancreatic cancer in the long term, as well. The relationship of chronic inflam- mation with organ-specific cancers may also be relevant for CP and pancreatic cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, it was stated that cancer risk in CP increased significantly. This risk is 16 times higher in the first 2 years and 8 times higher in 5 years. Although the risk rate slows within years, it still four times higher in the 10th year (462-464). Question G1-b: Should patients be screened for pancre- atic cancer? Suggestion G1-b: Although the risk of pancreatic cancer is known to increase in CP, there is no ideal cost-effective

and time for screening. Patients with hereditary pancreatitis should be screened for high risk. (Level of ev- idence: 4; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Although there is a strong relationship be - tween CP and pancreatic cancer, less than 5% of patients with CP develop pancreatic cancer during 20 years of fol- low-up. This risk is more apparent in hereditary forms. In addition, the risk attributed to society is 1.34% (465). Because this rate is less than 5%, screening and preven - tion programs are not recommended by the International Pancreatic Cancer Consortium. One reason for this is the lack of adequate, reliable, cost-effective early detection and screening methods (456). Therefore, screening is recommended only in patients with hereditary pancreati- tis or for clinical research purposes. Among the methods to be used for screening, EUS and MR are primarily pre - ferred; less frequently, CT and ERCP can only be used in selected cases (456, 466). Question G1-c: Should metformin be recommended to prevent pancreatic cancer development? Suggestion G1-c: Metformin should be preferred in pa - tients with diabetes with a background of CP, as it reduc- es the risk of developing pancreatic cancer. (Level of evi- dence: 2D; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: Pancreatic cancer ranks fifth among the caus- es of death worldwide and fourth among cancer-related deaths, and its 5-year survival is below 5%. The main risk factors for the development of pancreatic cancer are smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, DM, CP, fam - ily history, diet, and endocrine factors. The relationship between pancreatic cancer and DM is complex and bi - directional. Although long-term DM is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer, newly diagnosed DM can be a result of pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer can cause DM by destroying islet cells or by causing peripheral insulin resis- tance through increased islet amyloid polypeptide (455- 458, 461). The relationship between CP, DM, and pancreatic cancer is multifactorial. In the course of CP, DM develops in at least 20% of cases. Pancreatogenic DM accounts for 5% to 10% of the diabetic population in Western societies (135, 460). Metformin is one of the most commonly used oral antidiabetic drugs in the treatment of type 2 DM. One of the mechanisms explaining its possible antitumor effect is that it reduces insulin resistance and hyperin - sulinemia by affecting insulin-like growth factor 1 path. Another mechanism is that it can inhibit the growth of cancer cells by affecting the signal path of the liver kinase B1–AMP-activated protein kinase–mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, which regulates the energy metab - olism and protein synthesis of cells. In addition, its ability S26 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 to suppress tyrosine kinase receptors (human epidermal growth factor receptor [HER]1 and HER2), its having anti- oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, and the fact that it can kill cancer stem cells are among the mechanisms that explain the possible antitumor effect of metformin (454-456). According to the results of the meta-analysis conducted by Wang et al. (466), it has been shown that the use of metformin in patients with type 2 DM significantly de - creased the risk of pancreatic cancer (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.86, p=0.003). In another meta-analysis involving 37 studies involving individuals with type 2 DM, it has been shown that the use of metformin does not make a difference in terms of prostate cancer, but it reduces the risk of liver, pancreas, colorectal, and breast cancer at the rates of 78%, 46%, 23%, and 6%, respectively, and has a positive effect on mortality (454). In a cohort study conducted to investigate the effects of these drugs on cancer risk in patients using metformin and sulfonylurea, the risk of pancreatic cancer decreased in the metformin group, but no such effect was observed in the sulfony - lurea group (467). In another meta-analysis evaluating the effects of metformin on cancer risk in patients with diabetes, it has been shown to reduce the risk of all can - cers, including pancreatic cancer, by 31% (468). In another meta-analysis evaluating the effect of met - formin, sulfonylureas, insulin, and thiazolidinediones on the risk of pancreatic cancer, it was concluded that the sulfonylurea group increased the risk of pancreatic can - cer, whereas others did not have an effect on the devel - opment of pancreatic cancer (469). Apart from these, although there are many studies showing that metformin increases survival in patients with pancreatic cancer, there are no studies evaluating the effect of metformin in patients with CP (457, 462-465). Considering the relationship between CP, DM, and pan - creatic cancer, the use of metformin can be recommend- ed in patients with diabetic CP based on the above stud- ies. Question H: What are the factors affecting prognosis? Suggestion: Factors affecting prognosis in CP are age, continued alcohol use, smoking, malignancy, and male sex. (Level of evidence: 2D; Power of suggestion: Strong consensus) Comment: CP is known to significantly reduce the quality of life and life expectancy. Treatment and monitoring of symptoms and complications that may occur throughout life are required. When the studies determining the prognosis were exam- ined, patients were followed up for 6 years with the Chron- ic Pancreatitis Prognosis Score developed and validated in a cohort study in the literature. According to the results of this study, although the rate of hospitalization has in - creased (30%), it has been observed that the mortality rate has increased from 12.8% to 19.8% within the 6.3- 9.8 year observation period (470, 471). In another commu- nity-based study examining the natural course of CP, pa- tients were followed up for 10 years and it was found that only 20% of patients needed invasive therapeutic proce- dures. One of the most important results of this study is pain in CP because of alcohol, recurrent acute pancreatitis attacks, pseudocyst development, and higher frequency of EPI. Accordingly, the profile of the disease was found to be more serious in alcoholic CP. However, in this study, the total life span of both groups was not found to be different (32). In another study showing that the average life expec- tancy in CP is 8 years shorter than the general population, 11,972 patients with alcoholic and non-alcoholic CP were examined, and it was shown that mortality increased with age. Mortality is higher in patients who receive the diag - nosis of CP at an early age such as hereditary pancreatitis than in those diagnosed as having CP at an advanced age. It is more possible for the elderly to achieve lifestyle change better than young people, to adapt to the diabetes diet, to leave negative habits such as alcohol and smoking, and to modify the prognosis in this way. In this study, the mortal- ity rate was reported to be 46% in patients with alcoholic CP (471). In another study investigating the effect of age on prognosis, various age groups were studied in terms of death risk and life span. Accordingly, compared with pa - tients diagnosed before the age of 40 years, it has been shown that the risk of death increases between 2.3 and 6.3 times in patients of middle and advanced age. When simultaneous alcohol consumption and tobacco use were added to this group, the risk was shown to increase even more (472). In another study investigating the risk factors affecting CP prognosis, the natural courses of 2,037 pa - tients were followed and it was found that alcoholic CP showed a more serious course. This study is important for emphasizing the differences between alcoholic CP and non-alcoholic CP. In this study, it has been showed that male sex and cigarette smoking rates are higher in patients with alcoholic CP and these patients are younger than those with non-alcoholic CP (153). Average life expectan- cy in alcoholics has been reported to be 20-24 years after diagnosis in other studies (473-475). S27 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Because smoking and alcohol consumption are common behaviors, together they can also contribute to the de - velopment of CP. In a study of 108 patients with alcoholic CP who smoke, smoking has been shown to increase the progression of the disease in a dose-dependent manner, regardless of the level of alcohol consumed (476). In a meta-analysis, smoking has been shown to increase the risk of CP in a dose-dependent manner (37). In another study in which risk factors were evaluated and 3 million individuals were included in the analysis, active smoking was shown to increase the risk of CP by 1.87 times (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27) (477).

Chronic pancreatitis is a chronic fibroinflammatory dis - ease of the pancreas. Although its etiology is multifac - torial, the most common factor is alcohol. Abdominal pain is common, and it reduces the quality of life of pa - tients. Weight loss and malnutrition are other important clinical findings noted during the course of the disease. Early diagnosis can be especially difficult. It is import - ant to diagnose CP and EPI and to start the appropriate treatment on time to protect the patient from long- term morbidities such as malnutrition, pancreatogenic DM, and pancreatic cancer and to improve the quality of life. Multidisciplinary approach is essential in its diagno - sis and treatment.

1. van der Heijde D, Aletaha D, Carmona L, et al. 2014 Update of the EULAR standardised operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed rec- ommendations. Ann Rheum Dis 2015; 74: 8-13. [Crossref] 2. Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. In: www.cebm. net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evi - dence-march-2009/. 3. Whitcomb DC, Frulloni L, Garg P, et al. Chronic pancreatitis: an international draft consensus proposal for a new mechanistic defi - nition. Pancreatology 2016; 16: 218-24. [Crossref] 4. Sarles H, Adler G, Dani R, et al. The pancreatitis classification of Marseilles, Rome 1988. Scand J Gastroenterol 1989; 24: 641-2. [Crossref] 5. Singer MV, Gyr K, Sarles H. Revised classification of pancreatitis. Report of the Second International Symposium on the Classification of Pancreatitis in Marseille, France, March 28-30, 1984. Gastroen - terology 1985; 89: 683-5. [Crossref] 6. Sarner M, Cotton PB. Classification of pancreatitis. Gut 1984; 25: 756-9. [Crossref] 7. Nikkola J, Rinta-Kiikka I, Räty S, et al. Pancreatic morphological changes in long-term follow-up after initial episode of acute alco - holic pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2014; 18: 164-70. [Crossref] 8. Whitcomb DC, Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, et al. International con - sensus statements on early chronic Pancreatitis. Recommendations from the working group for the international consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with The International As - sociation of Pancreatology, American Pancreatic Association, Japan Pancreas Society, PancreasFest Working Group and European Pan - creatic Club. Pancreatology 2018; 18: 516-27. [Crossref] 9. Yadav DI, Timmons L, Benson JT, Dierkhising RA, Chari ST. Inci - dence, prevalence, and survival of chronic pancreatitis: a popula - tion-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 2192-9. [Crossref] 10. Otsuki M. Chronic pancreatitis in Japan: epidemiology, prognosis, diagnostic criteria, and future problems. J Gastroenterol 2003; 38: 315-26. [Crossref] 11. Tinto AI, Lloyd DA, Kang JY, et al. Acute and chronic pancreati - tis - diseases on the rise: a study of hospital admissions in England 1989⁄90-1999⁄2000. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002; 16: 2097-105. [Crossref] 12. Mayerle J, Hoffmeister A, Werner J, Witt H, Lerch MM, Mössner J. Chronic pancreatitis-definition, etiology, investigation and treat - ment. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013; 110: 387-93. [Crossref] 13. Kadaj-Lipka R, Lipiński M, Adrych K, et al. Diagnostic and ther - apeutic recommendations for chronic pancreatitis. Recommenda - tions of the Working Group of the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the Polish Pancreas Club. Prz Gastroenterol 2018; 13: 167-81. [Crossref] 14. Spanier BW, Dijkgraaf MG, Bruno MJ. Trends and forecasts of hospital admissions for acute and chronic pancreatitis in the Neth - erlands. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 20: 653-8. [Crossref] 15. Romagnuolo J, Talluri J, Kennard E, et al. Clinical Profile, Etiology, and Treatment of Chronic Pancreatitis in North American Women: Analysis of a Large Multicenter Cohort. Pancreas 2016; 45: 934-40. [Crossref] 16. Whitcomb DC, Yadav D, Adam S, et al. Multicenter approach to recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis in the United States: The North American Pancreatitis Study 2 (NAPS2). Pancreatology 2008; 8: 520-31. [Crossref]* 17. Frulloni L, Gabbrielli A, Pezzilli R, et al. Chronic pancreatitis: report from a multicenter Italian survey (PanCroInfAISP) on 893 patients. Dig Liver Dis 2009; 41: 311-7. [Crossref] 18. Hirota M, Shimosegawa T, Masamune A, et al. The seventh na - tionwide epidemiological survey for chronic pancreatitis in Japan: clinical significance of smoking habit in Japanese patients. Pancre - atology 2014; 14: 490-6. [Crossref] 19. Wang LW, Li ZS, Li SD, Jin ZD, Zou DW, Chen F. Prevalence and clinical features of chronic pancreatitis in China: a retrospective multicenter analysis over 10 years. Pancreas 2009; 38: 248-54. [Crossref] 20. Fernandez M, Arvanitakis M, Musala C, et al. The Belgian nation- al registry on chronic pancreatitis: A prospective multi-centre study covering more than 800 patients in one year. Pancreatology 2017; 17: 572-9. [Crossref] 21. Balakrishnan V, Unnikrishnan AG, Thomas V, et al. Chronic pan - creatitis. A prospective nationwide study of 1,086 subjects from In - dia. JOP 2008; 9: 593-600. 22. Şişman G, Köroğlu E, Erzin Y, Hatemi İ, Tuncer M, Şentürk H. De - mographic characteristics of chronic pancreatitis patients in the era of endosonography: Experience of a single tertiary referral center in Turkey. Turk J Gastroenterol 2016 May; 27: 284-9. [Crossref] 23. Ryu JK, Lee JK, Kim YT, et al. Clinical features of chronic pancre- atitis in Korea: a multicenter nationwide study. Digestion 2005; 72: 207-11. [Crossref] 24. Yadav D, Whitcomb DC. The role of alcohol and smoking in pancreatitis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 7: pp. 131-45. [Crossref] 25. Lévy P, Mathurin P, Roqueplo A, Rueff B, Bernades P. A multidi - mensional case-control study of dietary, alcohol, and tobacco habits S28 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 in alcoholic men with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 1995; 10: 231- 8. [Crossref] 26. Wilson JS, Bernstein L, McDonald C, Tait A, McNeil D, Pirola RC. Diet and drinking habits in relation to the development of alcoholic pancreatitis. Gut 1985; 26: 882-7. [Crossref] 27. Samokhvalov AV, Rehm J, Roerecke. Alcohol Consumption as a Risk Factor for Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and a Series of Meta-analyses. M EBioMedicine 2015; 2: 1996-2002. [Crossref] 28. Yadav D, Hawes RH, Brand RE, et al. Alcohol consumption, ciga - rette smoking, and the risk of recurrent acute and chronic pancreati- tis. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1035-45. [Crossref] 29. Ietiansen L, Gronbaek M, Becker U, Tolstrup JS. Risk of pancreati- tis according to alcohol drinking habits: a population-based cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 932-7. [Crossref] 30. Lankisch MR, Imoto M, Layer P, DiMagno EP. The effect of small amounts of alcohol on the clinical course of chronic pancreatitis. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 242-51. [Crossref] 31. Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. The epidemiology of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 1252-61. [Crossref] 32. Machicado JD, Chari ST, Timmons L, Tang G, Yadav D. A popula- tion-based evaluation of the natural history of chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2018; 18: 39-45. [Crossref] 33. Layer P, Yamamoto H, Kalthoff L, Clain JE, Bakken LJ, DiMag - no E. The different courses of early- and late-onset idiopathic and alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 1481-7. [Crossref] 34. Ammann RW, Muellhaupt B, Meyenberger C, Heitz PU. Alcoholic nonprogressive chronic pancreatitis: prospective long-term study of a large cohort with alcoholic acute pancreatitis (1976-1992). Pan - creas 1994; 9: 365-73. [Crossref] 35. Morton C, Klatsky AL, Udaltsova N. Smoking, coffee, and pancre- atitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 731-8. [Crossref] 36. Tolstrup JS, Kristiansen L, Becker U, Gronbaek M. Smoking and risk of acute and chronic pancreatitis among women and men: a population-based cohort study. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 603-9. [Crossref] 37. Andriulli A, Botteri E, Almasio PL, et al. Smoking as a cofactor for causation of chronic pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas 2010; 39: 1205-10. [Crossref] 38. Pfützer RH, Barmada MM, Brunskill AP, et al. SPINK1/PSTI poly - morphisms act as disease modifiers in familial and idiopathic chron- ic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2000; 119: 615-23. [Crossref] 39. Bishop MD, Freedman SD, Zielenski J, et al. The cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene and ion channel func - tion in patients with idiopathic pancreatitis. Hum Genet 2005; 118: 372-81. [Crossref] 40. Zhou J, Sahin-Tóth M. Chymotrypsin C mutations in chronic pan- creatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 26: 1238-124. [Crossref] 41. Cotton PB. Congenital anomaly of pancreas divisum can cause obstructive pain and pancreatitis. Gut 1980; 21: 105-14. [Crossref] 42. Bernard JP, Sahel J, Giovannini M, Sarles H. Pancreas divisum is probable cause of acute pancreatitis: a report of 137 cases. Pancre- as 1990; 5: 248-54. [Crossref] 43. Rizzo RJ, Szucs RA, Turner MA. Congenital abnormalities of the pancreas and biliary tree in adults. Radiographics 1995; 15: 49-68. [Crossref] 44. Delhaye M, Engelholm L, Cremer M. Pancreas divisum: congen - ital anatomic variant or anomaly? Contribution of endoscopic ret - rograde dorsal pancreatography. Gastroenterology 1985; 89: 951-8. [Crossref] 45. Lehman GA, Sherman S. Pancreas divisum. Diagnosis, clinical significance, and management alternatives. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1995; 5: 145-70. [Crossref] 46. Nishino T, Toki F, Oyama H, et al. Biliary tract involvement in au- toimmune pancreatitis. Pancreas 2005; 30: 76-82. 47. Maruyama M, Arakura N, Ozaki Y, et al. Type 1 autoimmune pan- creatitis can transform into chronic pancreatitis: a long-term fol - low-up study of 73 Japanese patients. Int J Rheumatol 2013; 5: 1-8. [Crossref] 48. Maire F, Le Baleur Y, Rebours V, et al. Outcome of patients with type 1 or 2 autoimmune pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 151-6. [Crossref] 49. Whitcomb DC. Chronic pancreatitis: diagnosis, classification, and new genetic developments. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 682- 707. [Crossref] 50. Whitcomb DC. Pancreatitis: TIGAR-O Version 2 Risk/Etiology Checklist with topic reviews, updates, and use primers. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2019; 10: e00027. [Crossref] 51. Schneider A, Löhr JM, Singer MV. The M-ANNHEIM classification of chronic pancreatitis: introduction of a unifying classification sys- tem based on a review of previous classifications of the disease. J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 101-19. [Crossref] 52. Schneider A, Pfutzer RH. Treatment of alcoholic pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 23: 241-6. [Crossref] 53. Howes N, Lerch MM, Greenhalf W, et al. Clinical and genetic char- acteristics of hereditary pancreatitis in Europe. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 252-61. [Crossref] 54. Rustagi T, Njei B. Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatogra- phy in the Diagnosis of Pancreas Divisum: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pancreas 2014; 43: 823-8. [Crossref] 55. Covantev S. Pancreas divisum: a reemerging risk factor for pan - creatic diseases. Rom J Intern Med 2018; 56: 233-42. [Crossref] 56. Whitcomb DC. Genetic risk factors for pancreatic disorders. Gas- troenterology 2013; 144: 1292-302. [Crossref] 57. Hegyi P, Wilschanski M, Muallem S, et al. CFTR: A new horizon in the pathomechanism and treatment of pancreatitis. Rev Phsiol Biochem Pharmacol 2016; 170: 37-66. [Crossref] 58. Whitcomb DC, Gorry MC, Preston RA, et al. Hereditary pancre - atitis is caused by a mutation in the cationic trypsinogen gene. Nat Genet 1996; 14: 141-5. [Crossref] 59. Giefer MJ, Lowe ME, Werlin SL, et al. Early-Onset Acute Recurrent and Chronic Pancreatitis Is Associated with PRSS1 or CTRC Gene Mutations. J Pediatr 2017; 186: 95-100. [Crossref] 60. Hu C, Wen L, Deng L, et al. The Differential Role of Human Cat - ionic Trypsinogen (PRSS1) p.R122H Mutation in Hereditary and Nonhereditary Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017; 2017: 9505460. [Crossref] 61. Di Leo M, Bianco M, Zuppardo RA, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of SPINK1 p.N34S gene variation in Caucasic patients with chronic pancreatitis. An update. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 847-53. [Crossref] 62. Oruç N, Osmanoğlu N, Aktan Ç, Berdeli A, Özütemiz AÖ. Common SPINK-1 genetic mutations do not predispose to Crohn’s Disease. Turk J Med Sci 2017; 47: 1300-1. [Crossref] 63. Gomez-Lira M, Bonamini D, Castellani C, et al. Mutations in the SPINK1 gene in idiopathic pancreatitis Italian patients. Eur J Hum Genet 2003; 11: 543-6. [Crossref] 64. Ooi CY, Dorfman R, Cipolli M, et al. Type of CFTR mutation deter- mines risk of pancreatitis in patients with cystic fibrosis. Gastroen - terology 2011; 140: 153-61. [Crossref] S29 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee 65. Şişman G, Tuğcu M, Ayla K, Sebati Ö, Şentürk H. Mutation anal - ysis of PRSS1, SPINK1 and CFTR gene in patients with alcoholic and idiopathic chronic pancreatitis: A single center study. Turk J Gastro- enterol 2015; 26: 176-80. [Crossref] 66. Rosendahl J, Witt H, Szmola R, et al. Chymotrypsin C (CTRC) vari- ants that diminish activity or secretion are associated with chronic pancreatitis. Nat Genet 2008; 40: 78-82. [Crossref] 67. Masson E, Chen JM, Scotet V, Le Marachal C, Farec C. Association of rare chymotrypsinogen C (CTRC) gene variations in patients with id- iopathic chronic pancreatitis. Hum Genet 2008; 123: 83-91. [Crossref] 68. Muddana V, Lamb J, Greer JB, et al. Association between calcium sensing receptor gene polymorphisms and chronic pancreatitis in a US population: role of serine protease inhibitor Kazal 1type and alco- hol. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 4486-91. [Crossref] 69. Raeder H, Johansson S, Holm PI, et al. Mutations in the CEL VNTR cause a syndrome of diabetes and pancreatic exocrine dysfunction. Nat Genet 2006; 38: 54-62. [Crossref] 70. Witt H, Beer S, Rosendahl J, et al. Variants in CPA1 are strongly associated with early onset chronic pancreatitis. Nat Genet 2013; 45: 1216-20. [Crossref] 71. Zhong Y, Zou R, Cao J, Peng M. Glutathione S-transferase M1 and glutathione S-transferase T1 genotype in chronic pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res 2015; 43: 9-16. [Crossref] 72. Zhong Y, Cao J, Zou R, Peng M. Genetic polymorphisms in alco - hol dehydrogenase, aldehyde dehydrogenase and alcoholic chronic pancreatitis susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 38: 417-25. [Crossref] 73. Vatansever S, Tekin F, Salman E, Altintoprak E, Coskunol H, Akarca US. Genetic polymorphisms of ADH1B, ADH1C and ALDH2 in Turkish alcoholics: lack of association with alcoholism and alcoholic cirrhosis. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2015; 15: 37-41. [Crossref] 74. Meng Q, Xin L, Liu W, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Autoim - mune Pancreatitis in China: A Systematic Review. PLoS One 2015; 25: 10: e0130466. [Crossref] 75. Matsubayashi H, Kakushima N, Takizawa K, et al. Diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 16559- 69. [Crossref] 76. Okazaki K, Uchida K, Oha M, et al. Autoimmune-related pancre - atitis is associated with autoantibodies and a Th1/Th2-type cellular immune response. Gastroenterology 2000; 118: 573-81. [Crossref] 77. Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, Frulloni L, et al. International consen - sus diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis: guidelines of the International Association of Pancreatology. Pancreas 2011; 40: 352-8. [Crossref] 78. Matsubayashi H, Yoneyama M, Nanri K, et al. Determination of steroid response by abdominal ultrasound in cases with autoim - mune pancreatitis. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 1034-40. [Crossref] 79. Kamisawa T, Shimosegawa T, Okazaki K, et al. Standard ste - roid treatment for autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut 2009; 58: 1504-7. [Crossref] 80. Rizk MK, Gerke H. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreati - tis: a review. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 6321-6. [Crossref] 81. Drewes AM, Bouwense SAW, Campbell CM, et al. Guidelines for the understanding and management of pain in chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2017; 17: 720-31. [Crossref] 82. Bockman DE, Buchler M, Malfertheiner P, Beger HG. Analysis of nerves in chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1988; 94: 1459-69. [Crossref] 83. Ceyhan GO, Michalski CW, Demir IE, Müller MW, Friess H. Pan - creatic pain. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 31-44. [Crossref] 84. Karanjia ND, Reber HA. The cause and management of the pain of chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1990; 19: 895-904. 85. Ebbehoj N, Borly L, Madsen P, Svendsen LB. Pancreatic tissue pressure and pain in chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 1986; 1: 556-8. [Crossref] 86. Dimcevski G, Sami SA, Funch-Jensen P, et al. Pain in chronic pancreatitis: the role of reorganization in the central nervous sys - tem. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 1546-56. [Crossref] 87. Gubergrits N, Malecka-Panas E, Lehman GA, et al. A 6-month, open-label clinical trial of pancrelipase delayed-release capsules (Creon) in patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic surgery. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 1152-61. [Crossref] 88. Ammann RW, Muellhaupt B. The natural history of pain in al - coholic chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1999; 116: 1132-40. [Crossref] 89. Mullady DK, Yadav D, Amann ST, et al. Type of pain, pain-associ- ated complications, quality of life, disability and resource utilisation in chronic pancreatitis: a prospective cohort study. Gut 2011; 60: 77- 84. [Crossref] 90. Anderson MA, Akshintala V, Albers KM, et al. Mechanism, assess- ment and management of pain in chronic pancreatitis: Recommen- dations of a multidisciplinary study group. Pancreatology 2016; 16: 83-94. [Crossref] 91. Bouwense SA, Buscher HC, van Goor H, Wilder-Smith OHG. S-ketamine modulates hyperalgesia in patients with chronic pan - creatitis pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2011; 36: 303-7. [Crossref] 92. Madzak A, Olesen SS, Lykke Poulsen J, Mark EB, Drewes AM, Frokjaer JB. MRI assessed pancreatic morphology and exocrine function are associated with disease burden in chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 29: 1269-75. [Crossref] 93. Hao L, Liu Y, Wang T, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is safe and effective for geriatric patients with chronic pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34: 466-73. 94. Pezzilli R, Morselli-Labate AM, Frulloni L, et al. The quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis evaluated using the SF-12 questionnaire: a comparative study with the SF-36 questionnaire. Dig Liver Dis 2006; 38: 109-15. [Crossref] 95. Bloechle C, Izbicki JR, Knoefel WT, Kuechler T, Broelsch CE. Qual- ity of life in chronic pancreatitis--results after duodenum-preserv - ing resection of the head of the pancreas. Pancreas 1995; 11: 77-85. [Crossref] 96. Andersen PL, Madzak A, Olesen SS, Drewes AM, Frokjaer JB. Quantification of parenchymal calcifications in chronic pancreatitis: relation to atrophy, ductal changes, fibrosis and clinical parameters. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018; 53: 218-24. [Crossref] 97. Wassef W, Bova C, Barton B, Hartigan C. Pancreatitis Quality of Life Instrument: Development of a new instrument. SAGE Open Med 2014; 2: 2050312114520856. [Crossref] 98. Pongprasobchai S. Maldigestion from pancreatic exocrine insuf- ficiency. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28: 99-102. [Crossref] 99. Owens SR, Greenson JK. The pathology of malabsorption: current concepts. Histopathology 2007; 50: 64-82. [Crossref] 100. Shandro BM, Nagarajah R, Poullis A. Challenges in the man - agement of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther 2018; 9: 39-46. [Crossref] 101. Forsmark CE. Diagnosis and Management of Exocrine Pancre - atic Insufficiency. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2018; 16: 306- 15. [Crossref] 102. Durie P, Baillargeon JD, Bouchard S, Donnellan F, Zepeda-Go - mez S, Teshima C. Diagnosis and management of pancreatic S30 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 exocrine insufficiency (PEI) in primary care: consensus guidance of a Canadian expert panel. Curr Med Res Opin 2018; 34: 25-33. [Crossref] 103. Rothenbacher D, Löw M, Hardt PD, Klör HU, Ziegler H, Brenner H. Prevalence and determinants of exocrine pancreatic insufficien - cy among older adults: results of a population-based study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005; 40: 697-704. [Crossref] 104. Othman MO, Harb D, Barkin JA. Introduction and practical ap - proach to exocrine pancreatic insufficiency for the practicing clini - cian. Int J Clin Pract 2018; 72: e13066. [Crossref] 105. Ewald N, Kaufmann C, Raspe A, Kloer HU, Bretzel RG, Hardt PD. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus secondary to pancreatic diseases (type 3c). Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2012; 28: 338-42. [Crossref] 106. Mohapatra S, Majumder S, Smyrk TC, et al. Diabetes Mellitus Is Associated with an Exocrine Pancreatopathy Conclusions From a Review of Literature. Pancreas 2016; 45: 1104-10. [Crossref] 107. Enrique Domínguez Muñoz J. Diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis: Functional testing. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 233- 41. [Crossref] 108. Löser C, Möllgaard A, Fölsch UR. Faecal elastase 1: a novel, high- ly sensitive and specific tubeless pancreatic function test. Gut 1996; 39: 580-6. [Crossref] 109. Domínguez-Muñoz JE, Hyeronimus C, Sauerbruch T, Malfert - heiner P. Fecal elastase test: evaluation of a new noninvasive pan - creatic function test. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90: 1834-7. 110. Stein J, Jung M, Sziegoleit A, Zeuzem S, Caspary F, Lembcke B. Immunoreactive elastase I: clinical evaluation of a new noninvasive test of pancreatic function. Clin Chem 1996; 42: 222-6. [Crossref] 111. Lankisch PG, Schmidt I, König H, et al. Faecal elastase 1: not helpful in diagnosing chronic pancreatitis associated with mild to moderate exocrine pancreatic insuficiency. Gut 1998; 42: 551-4. [Crossref] 112. Lüth S, Teyssen S, Forssmann K, Kölbel C, Krummenauer F, Sing- er MV. Fecal Elastase-1 Determination: ‘Gold Standard’ of Indirect Pancreatic Function Tests? Scand J Gastroenterol 2001; 36: 1092-9. [Crossref] 113. Vanga RR, Tansel A, Sidiq S, El-Serag HB, Othman MO. Diagnos- tic Performance of Measurement of Fecal Elastase-1 in Detection of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency: Systematic Review and Me - ta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1220-8. [Crossref] 114. Ventrucci M, Cipolla A, Ubalducci, Roda A, Roda E. 13C-labelled cholesteryl octanoate breath test for assessing pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Gut 1998; 42: 81-7. [Crossref] 115. Domínguez-Muñoz JE, Iglesias-García J, Vilariño-Insua M, Igle - sias-Rey M. 13C-mixedtriglyceridebreathtesttoassessoral enzyme substitution therapy in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Clin Gas- troenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 484-8. [Crossref] 116. Domínguez-Muñoz JE, Nieto L, Vilariño M, Lourido MV, García JI. Development and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Breath Test for Pancre - atic Exocrine Insufficiency in Chronic Pancreatitis. Pancreas 2016; 45: 241-7. [Crossref] 117. Gonzalez-Sanchez V, Amrani R, Gonzalez V, Trigo C, Pico A, de- Madaria E. Diagnosis of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in chronic pancreatitis: 13C-Mixed Triglyceride Breath Test versus Fecal Elas - tase. Pancreatology 2017; 17: 580-5. [Crossref] 118. Löser C, Brauer C, Aygen S, Hennemann O, Fölsch UR. Compar - ative Clinical Evaluation of the 13C-Mixed Triglyceride Breath Test as an Indirect Pancreatic Function Test. Scand J Gastroenterol 1998; 33: 327-34. [Crossref] 119. Manfredi R, Mucelli RP. Secretin-enhanced MR Imaging of the Pancreas. Radiology 2016; 279: 29-43. [Crossref] 120. Cappeliez O, Delhaye M, Devière J, et al. Chronic pancreati - tis: evaluation of pancreatic exocrine function with MR pancrea - tography after secretin stimulation. Radiology 2000; 215: 358-64. [Crossref] 121. Balci NC, Smith A, Momtahen AJ, et al. MRI and S-MRCP find - ings in patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis: correlation with endoscopic pancreatic function testing (ePFT). J Magn Reson Imag- ing 2010; 31: 601-6. [Crossref] 122. Hansen TM, Nilsson M, Gram M, Frøkjær JB. Morphological and functional evaluation of chronic pancreatitis with magnetic reso - nance imaging. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 7241-6. [Crossref] 123. Bian Y, Wang L, Chen C, et al. Quantification of pancreatic exocrine function of chronic pancreatitis with secretin-enhanced MRCP. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 7177-82 . [Crossref] 124. Introduction: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Dia- betes Care 2018; 41(Suppl 1): 1-2. [Crossref] 125. Hardt PD, Brendel MD, Kloer HU, Bretzel RG. Is pancreatic dia - betes (type 3c diabetes) underdiagnosed and misdiagnosed? Diabe- tes Care 2008; 31 Suppl 2: 165-9. [Crossref] 126. Vujasinovic M, Tepes B, Makuc J, et al. Pancreatic exocrine insuf- ficiency, diabetes mellitus and serum nutritional markers after acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 18432-8. [Crossref] 127. Dominguez-Munoz JE, Lucendo A, Carballo LF, Iglesias-Garcia J, Tenias JM. A. Spanish multicenter study to estimate the preva - lence and incidence of chronic pancreatitis and its complications. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2014; 106: 239-45. 128. Woodmansey C, McGovern AP, McCullough KA, et al. Incidence, Demographics, and Clinical Characteristics of Diabetes of the Exo - crine Pancreas (Type 3c): A Retrospective Cohort Study. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 1486-93. [Crossref] 129. Wang W, Guo Y, Liao Z, et al. Occurrence of and risk factors for diabetes mellitus in Chinese patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 2011; 40: 206-12. [Crossref] 130. Rickels MR, Bellin M, Toledo FG, et al. Detection, evaluation and treatment of diabetes mellitus in chronic pancreatitis: recommen - dations from PancreasFest 2012. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 336-42. [Crossref] 131. Seymour NE, Volpert AR, Lee EL, Andersen DK, Hernandez C. Alterations in hepatocyte insulin binding in chronic pancreatitis: effects of pancreatic polypeptide. Am J Surg 1995; 169: 105-9. [Crossref] 132. Nathan JD, Zdankiewicz PD, Wang J, et al. Impaired hepatocyte glucose transport protein (GLUT2) internalization in chronic pancre- atitis. Pancreas 2001; 22: 172-8. [Crossref] 133. Kiechl S, Wittmann J, Giaccari A, et al. Blockade of receptor ac- tivator of nuclear factor-kappaB (RANKL) signaling improves hepat- ic insulin resistance and prevents development of diabetes mellitus. Nat Med 2013; 19: 358-63. [Crossref] 134. Zhou X, You S. Rosiglitazone inhibits hepatic insulin resistance induced by chronic pancreatitis and IKK-beta/NF-kappaB expres - sion in liver. Pancreas 2014; 43: 1291-8. [Crossref] 135. Cui Y, Andersen DK. Pancreatogenic diabetes: special consider- ations for management. Pancreatology 2011; 11: 279-94. [Crossref] 136. Couet C, Genton P, Pointel JP, et al. The prevalence of retinop - athy is similar in diabetes mellitus secondary to chronic pancreatitis with or without pancreatectomy and in idiopathic diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1985; 8: 323-8. [Crossref] 137. Lindkvist B. Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic exocrine in- sufficiency. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 7258-66. [Crossref] 138. Nair RJ, Lawler L, Miller MR. Chronic pancreatitis. Am Fam Phy - sician 2007; 76: 1679-88. S31 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee 139. Muniraj T, Aslanian HR, Farrell J, Jamidar PA. Chronic pancreati- tis, a comprehensive review and update. Part II: Diagnosis, complica- tions, and management. Dis Mon 2015; 61: 5-37. 140. Oh HC, Kwon CI, El Hajj II, et al. Low Serum Pancreatic Amylase and Lipase Values Are Simple and T-USGeful Predictors to Diagnose Chronic Pancreatitis. Gut Liver 2017; 11: 878-83. [Crossref] 141. Gullo L, Costa PL, Fontana G, LaboÁ G. Investigation of exocrine pancreatic function by continuoT-USG infT-USGion of caerulein and secretin in normal subjects and in chronic pancreatitis. Diges-tion 1976; 14: 97-107. [Crossref] 142. Niederau C, Grendell JH. Diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. Gas- troenterology 1985; 88: 1973-95. [Crossref] 143. Glasbrenner B, Schön A, Klatt S, Beckh K, Adler G. Clinical eval- uation of the faecal elastase test in the diagnosis and staging of chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996; 8: 1117-20. [Crossref] 144. Issa Y, Kempeneers MA, van Santvoort HC, Bollen TL, Bipat S, Boermeester MA. Diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 3820-44. [Crossref] 145. Pungpapong S, Wallace MB, Woodward TA, Noh KW, Raimon- do M. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic reso- nance cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of chronic pan- creatitis: a prospective comparison study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2007; 41: 88-93. [Crossref] 146. Buscail L, Escourrou J, Moreau J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonog- raphy in chronic pancreatitis: a comparative prospective study with conventional ultrasonography, computed tomography, and ERKP. Pancreas 1995; 10: 251-7. [Crossref] 147. Dawwas MF, Taha H, Leeds JS, Nayar MK, Oppong KW. Diag- nostic accuracy of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, sin- glecenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 953-61. [Crossref] 148. Dominguez-Muñoz JE, Iglesias-Garcia J, Castiñeira Alvariño M, Luaces Regueira M, Lariño-Noia J. EUS elastography to predict pan- creatic exocrine insufficiency in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 136-42. [Crossref] 149. Yashima Y, Sasahira N, Isayama H, et al. Acoustic radiation force impulse elastography for noninvasive assessment of chronic pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 427-32. [Crossref] 150. Vijungco JD, Prinz RA. Management of biliary and duodenal complications of chronic pancreatitis. World J Surg 2003; 27: 1258- 70. [Crossref] 151. Jha AK, Goenka MK, Goenka U. Chronic pancreatitis in Eastern India: Experience from a tertiary care center. Indian J Gastroenterol 2017; 36: 131-6. [Crossref] 152. Saluja SS, Kalayarasan R, Mishra PK, Srivastava S, Chandrasekar S, Godhi S. Chronic pancreatitis with benign biliary obstruction: management issues. World J Surg 2014; 38: 2455-9. [Crossref] 153. Hao L, Wang LS, Liu Y, et al. The different course of alcoholic and idiopathic chronic pancreatitis: A long-term study of 2,037 pa - tients. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0198365. [Crossref] 154. Littenberg G, Afroudakis A, Kaplowitz N. Common bile duct ste- nosis from chronic pancreatitis: a clinical and pathologic spectrum. Medicine (Baltimore) 1979; 58: 385-412. [Crossref] 155. Rigauts H, Marchal G, Van Steenbergen W, Ponette E. Compar- ison of ultrasound and E.R.C.P. in the detection of the cause of ob- structive biliary disease. Rofo 1992; 156: 252-7. [Crossref] 156. Materne R, Van Beers BE, Gigot JF, et al. Extrahepatic biliary ob- struction: magnetic resonance imaging compared with endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 3. [Crossref] 157. Saifuku Y, Yamagata M, Koike T, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonogra- phy can diagnose distal biliary strictures without a mass on comput- ed tomography. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 237-44. [Crossref] 158. Huizinga WK, Baker LW. Surgical intervention for regional com- plications of chronic pancreatitis. Int Surg 1993; 78: 315-9. 159. Aranha GV, Prinz RA, Greenlee HB, Freeark RJ. Gastric outlet and duodenal obstruction from inflammatory pancreatic disease. Arch Surg 1984; 119: 833-5. [Crossref] 160. Bradley EL, 3rd, Clements JL, Jr. Idiopathic duodenal obstruc - tion: an unappreciated complication of pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1981; 193: 638-48. [Crossref] 161. Kozarek RA, Sanowski RA. Duodenal and common bile duct ob- struction in pancreatitis simulating carcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol 1981; 3: 53-9. [Crossref] 162. Archer S, Levitt S, Drury P. Duodenal necrosis and intramural haematoma complicating acute pancreatitis. Aust N Z J Surg 1991; 61: 542-4. [Crossref] 163. Rheingold OJ, Walker JA, Barkin JS. Gastric outlet obstruction due to a pancreatic pseudocyst: report of two cases. Am J Gastroen- terol 1978; 69: 92-6. 164. Brust R, Chen KC. Acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis complicated by duodenal obstruction. Report of a case. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1962; 87: 732-5. 165. Xu W, Qi X, Chen J, Su C, Guo X. Prevalence of Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis in Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Anal - ysis of Observational Studies. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 2015: 245460. [Crossref] 166. Wang L, Liu GJ, Chen YX, Dong HP, Zhang YQ, Wang LX. Com - bined use of D-dimer and P-selectin for the diagnosis of splenic or portal vein thrombosis following splenectomy. Thromb Res 2010; 125: e206-9. [Crossref] 167. Jiang W, Zhou J, Ke L, et al. Splanchnic vein thrombosis in nec - rotizing acute pancreatitis: Detection by computed tomographic venography. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 16698-701. [Crossref] 168. Cakmak O, Elmas N, Tamsel S, et al. Role of contrast-enhanced 3D magnetic resonance portography in evaluating portal venous system compared with color Doppler ultrasonography. Abdom Im - aging 2008; 33: 65-71. [Crossref] 169. Chiang KC, Chen TH, Hsu JT. Management of chronic pancre - atitis complicated with a bleeding pseudoaneurysm. World J Gastro- enterol 2014; 20: 16132-7. [Crossref] 170. Hsu JT, Yeh CN, Hung CF, et al. Management and outcome of bleeding pseudoaneurysm associated with chronic pancreatitis. BMC Gastroenterol 2006; 6: 3-8. [Crossref ] 171. Vander Mijnsbrugge W, Laleman W, Van Steenbergen W, Heye S, Verslype C, Maleux G. Long-term clinical and radiological outcome of endovascular embolization of pancreatitis-related pseudoaneu- rysms. Acta Radiol 2017; 58: 316-22. [Crossref] 172. Zhou LY, Xie XY, Chen D, Lü MD. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in detection and follow-up of pancreaticoduodenal artery pseudo- aneurysm: a case report. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124: 2792-4. 173. Yamanaka Y, Ishida H, Naganuma H, et al. Superb microvascular imaging (SMI) findings of splenic artery pseudoaneurysm: a report of two cases. J Med Ultrason (2001) 2018; 45: 515-23. [Crossref] 174. Dörffel T, Wruck T, Rückert RI, Romaniuk P, Dörffel Q, Wermke W. Vascular complications in acute pancreatitis assessed by color duplex ultrasonography. Pancreas 2000; 21: 126-33. [Crossref] 175. Gunjan D, Gamanagatti S, Garg P. Endoscopic ultrasonogra - phy-guided obliteration of a left inferior phrenic artery pseudoan - eurysm in a patient with alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 449-50. [Crossref] S32 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 176. Rai P, Bhera B, Sharma M. First report of successful treatment of splenic artery pseudoaneurysm with endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil and glue. Endoscopy 2017; 49: E179-80. [Crossref] 177. Fukatsu K, Ueda K, Maeda H, et al. A case of chronic pancreatitis in which endoscopic ultrasonography was effective in the diagnosis of a pseudoaneurysm. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 4: 335-8. [Crossref] 178. Bergert H, Hinterseher I, Kersting S, Leonhardt J, Bloomenthal A, Saeger HD. Management and outcome of hemorrhage due to ar - terial pseudoaneurysms in pancreatitis. Surgery 2005; 137: 323-8. [Crossref] 179. Gabrielli D, Taglialatela F, Mantini C, Giammarino A, Modestino F, Cotroneo AR. Endovascular Treatment of Visceral Artery Pseudo - aneurysms in Patients with Chronic Pancreatitis: Our Single-Center Experience. Ann Vasc Surg 2017; 45: 112-6. [Crossref] 180. Gullo L, Barbara L, Labo G. Effect of cessation of alcohol use on the course of pancreatic dysfunction in alcoholic pancreatitis. Gas - troenterology 1988 ;95: 1063-8. [Crossref] 181. Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB, Mullhaupt B, et al. Cigarette smoking accelerates progression of alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Gut 2005; 54: 510-4. [Crossref] 182. Bourliere M, Barthet M, Berthezene P, Durbec JP, Sarles H. Is to- bacco a risk factor for chronic pancreatitis and alcoholic cirrhosis? Gut 1991; 32: 1392-5. [Crossref] 183. Talamini G, Bassi C, Falconi M, et al. Smoking cessation at the clinical onset of chronic pancreatitis and risk of pancreatic calcifi - cations. Pancreas 2007; 35: 320-6. [Crossref] 184. Han S, Kheder J, Bocelli L, et al. Smoking Cessation in a Chronic Pancreatitis Population. Pancreas 2016; 45: 1303-8. [Crossref] 185. Lindkvist B, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Luaces-Regueira M, et al. Serum nutritional markers for prediction of pancreatic exocrine in - sufficiency in chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 305-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2012.04.006 [Crossref] 186. Sikkens EC, Cahen DL, Koch AD, et al. The prevalence of fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies and a decreased bone mass in pa - tients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 238-42. [Crossref] 187. Duggan SN, Smyth ND, O’Sullivan M, Feehan S, Ridgway PF, Conlon KC. The prevalence of malnutrition and fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies in chronic pancreatitis. Nutr Clin Pract 2014; 29: 348- 54. [Crossref] 188. Marotta F, Labadarios D, Frazer L, Girdwood A, Marks IN. Fat-soluble vitamin concentration in chronic alcohol-induced pan - creatitis. Relationship with steatorrhea. Dig Dis Sci 1994; 39: 993-8. [Crossref] 189. Meier R, Ockenga J, Pertkiewicz M, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Pancreas. Clin Nutr 2006; 25: 275-84. [Crossref] 190. Haas S, Krins S, Knauerhase A, Löhr M. Altered bone metabolism and bone density in patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancre - atic exocrine insufficiency. JOP 2015; 16: 58-62. 191. Min M, Patel B, Han S, et al. Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency and Malnutrition in Chronic Pancreatitis: Identification, Treatment, and Consequences. Pancreas 2018; 47: 1015-8. [Crossref] 192. Hoogenboom SA, Lekkerkerker SJ, Fockens P, Boermeester MA, van Hooft JE. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the preva - lence of vitamin D deficiency in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2016; 16: 800-6. [Crossref] 193. Duggan SN, Smyth ND, Murphy A, et al. High prevalence of os - teoporosis in patients with chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 219-28. [Crossref] 194. Regunath H, Shivakumar BM, Kurien A, Satyamoorthy K, Pai CG. Anthropometric measurements of nutritional status in chronic pan- creatitis in India: comparison of tropical and alcoholic pancreatitis. Indian J Gastroenterol 2011; 30: 78-83. [Crossref] 195. Olesen SS, Frandsen LK, Poulsen JL, Vestergaard P, Rasmus - sen HH, Drewes AM. The prevalence of underweight is increased in chronic pancreatitis outpatients and associates with reduced life quality. Nutrition 2017; 43-44: 1-7. [Crossref] 196. Hintaran AD, Chenault MN, Verhaegh BPM, Reijven PLM, Mas - clee AAM, Keulemans YCA. Improving nutritional status assessment in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2018; 18: 785- 91. [Crossref] 197. Gianotti L, Meier R, Lobo DN, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Par - enteral Nutrition: pancreas. Clin Nutr 2009; 28: 428-35. [Crossref] 198. Mirtallo JM, Forbes A, McClave SA, et al. International consensus guidelines for nutrition therapy in pancreatitis. JPEN 2012; 36: 284- 91. [Crossref] 199. Giger U, Stanga Z, DeLegge MH. Management of chronic pan - creatitis. Nutr Clin Pract 2004; 19: 37-49. [Crossref] 200. Duggan S, O’Sullivan M, Feehan S, Ridgway P, Conlon K. Nutri- tion treatment of deficiency and malnutrition in chronic pancreati - tis: a review. Nutr Clin Pract 2010; 25: 362-70. [Crossref] 201. Singh S, Midha S, Singh N, Joshi YK, Garg PK. Dietary counseling versus dietary supplements for malnutrition in chronic pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 353-9. [Crossref] 202. Forsmark CE. Management of Chronic Pancreatitis. Gastroen - terology 2013; 144: 1282-91. [Crossref] 203. Chauhan S, Forsmark CE. Pain management in chronic pancre- atitis: A treatment algorithm. Best Prac Research Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 323-35. [Crossref] 204. Vargas-Schaffer G. Is the WHO nalgesic ladder still valid? Can Fam Physician 2010; 56: 514-7. 205. Wilder-Smith CH, Hill L, Osler W, O’ Keefe S. Effect of Trama - dol and Morphine on pain and gastrointestinal motor function in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1999; 44: 1107-16. [Crossref] 206. Niemann T, Madsen LG, Larsen S, Thorsgaard N. Opioid treat - ment of painful chronic pancreatitis. Int J Pancreatol 2000; 27: 235- 40. [Crossref] 207. Olesen SS, Bouwense SA, Wilder-Smith OH, van Goor H, Drewes AM. Pregabalin reduces pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis in a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2011; 141: 536-43. [Crossref] 208. Cartmell MT, O’Reilly DA, Porter C, Kingsnorth AN. A dou - ble-blind placebo-controlled trial of leukotriene receptor antagonist in chronic pancreatitis in humans. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2004; 11: 255-9. [Crossref] 209. De Vries M, van Rijckevorsel DCM, Vissers KCP, Wilder-Smith OHG, van Goor H. Tetrahydrocannabiol does not reduce pain in pa - tients with chronic abdominal pain in a Phase-2 placebo-controlled study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1079-86. [Crossref] 210. Malfertheiner P, Mayer D, Büchler M, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Schiefer B, Ditschuneit H. Treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis by inhibition of pancreatic secretion with octreotide. Gut 1995; 36: 450-4. [Crossref] 211. Yaghoobi M, McNabb-Baltar J, Bijarchi R, Cotton PB. Pancreatic enzyme supplements are not effective relieving abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 2016: 8541839. [Crossref] S33 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee 212. Isaksson G, Ihse I. Pain reduction by an oral pancreatic enzyme preparation in chronic pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1983; 28: 97-102. [Crossref] 213. Rustagi T, Njei B. Antioxidant therapy for pain reduction in patients with chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and me - ta-analysis. Pancreas 2015; 44: 812-8. [Crossref] 214. Zhou D, Wang W, Cheng X, Wei J, Zheng S. Antioxidant therapy for patients with chronic pancreatitis: A systematic review and me - ta-analysis. Clin Nutr 2015; 34: 627-34. [Crossref] 215. Ahmed Ali U, Jens S, Busch OR, et al. Antioxidants for pain in chronic pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 21: CD008945. [Crossref] 216. Cai GH, Huang J, Zhao Y, et al. Antioxidant therapy for pain re - lief in patients with chronic pancreatitis: systematic review and me- ta-analysis. Pain Physician 2013; 16: 521-32. 217. Talukdar R, Murthy HV, Reddy DN. Role of methionine contain - ing antioxidant combination in the management of pain in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2015; 15: 136-44. [Crossref] 218. Jiang L, Ning D, Cheng Q, Chen XP. Endoscopic versus surgical drainage treatment of calcific chronic pancreatitis. Int J Surg 2018; 54: 242-7. [Crossref] 219. Costamagna G, Gabbrielli A, Mutignani M, Pandolfi M, Boscaini M, Crucitti F. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic stones in chronic pancreatitis: immediate and medium-term results. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 231-6. [Crossref] 220. Farnbacher MJ, Schoen C, Rabenstein T, Benninger J, Hahn EG, Schneider HT. Pancreatic duct stones in chronic pancreatitis: crite - ria for treatment intensity and success. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 501-6. [Crossref] 221. Delhaye M, Vandermeeren A, Baize M, Cremer M. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of pancreatic calculi. Gastroenterology 1992; 102: 610-20. [Crossref] 222. Dumonceau JM, Delhaye M, Tringali A, et al. Endoscopic treat - ment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 784-800. [Crossref] 223. Thomas M, Howell DA, Carr-Locke D, et al. Mechanical litho - tripsy of pancreatic and biliary stones: complications and available treatment options collected from expert centers. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1896-902. [Crossref] 224. Sherman S, Lehman GA, Hawes RH, et al. Pancreatic ductal stones: frequency of successful endoscopic removal and improve - ment in symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 511-7. [Crossref] 225. Nguyen-Tang T, Dumonceau JM. Endoscopic treatment in chronic pancreatitis, timing, duration and type of intervention. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 281-98. [Crossref] 226. Moole H, Jaeger A, Bechtold ML, Forcione D, Taneja D, Puli SR. Success of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Chronic Cal - cific Pancreatitis Management: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Pancreas 2016; 45: 651-8. [Crossref] 227. Sauerbruch T, Holl J, Sackmann M, Paumgartner G. Extracorporeal lithotripsy of pancreatic stones in patients with chronic pancreatitis and pain: a prospective follow up study. Gut 1992; 33: 969-72. [Crossref] 228. Scheineder HT, May A, Benninger J, et al. Piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 2042-8. 229. van der Hul R, Plaisier P, Jeekel J, Terpstra O, den Toom R, Bru - ining H. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of pancreatic duct stones: immediate and long-term results. Endoscopy 1994; 26: 573- 8. [Crossref] 230. Dumonceau JM, Deviere J, LeMoine O, et al. Endoscopic pancre- atic drainage in chronic pancreatitis associated with ductal stones: long-term results. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 547-55. [Crossref] 231. Johanns W, Jakobeit C, Greiner L, Janssen J. Ultrasound-guid - ed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic ductal stones: Six years’ experience. Can J Gastroenterol 1996; 10: 471-5. [Crossref] 232. Adamek HE, Jakobs R, Buttmann A, Adamek MU, Schneider AR, Riemann JF. Long term follow up of patients with chronic pancre - atitis and pancreatic stones treated with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Gut 1999; 45: 402-5. [Crossref] 233. Brand B, Kahl M, Sidhu S, et al. Prospective evaluation of mor - phology, function, and quality of life after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and endoscopic treatment of chronic calcific pancreati - tis. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 3428-38. [Crossref] 234. Kozarek RA, BrandaburJ J, Ball TJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients who undergo extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for chronic calcific pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 496- 500. [Crossref] 235. Karasawa Y, Kawa S, Aoki Y, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic duct stones and patient factors related to stone disintegration. J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 369-75. [Crossref] 236. Delhaye M, Arvanitakis M, Verset G, Cremer M, Deviere J. Long- term clinical outcome after endoscopic pancreatic ductal drainage for patients with painful chronic pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 1096-106. [Crossref] 237. Tadenuma H, Ishihara T, Yamaguchi T, et al. Long-term results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and endoscopic therapy for pancreatic stones. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 1128-35. [Crossref] 238. Dumonceau J-M, Costamagna G, Tringali A, et al. Treatment for painful calcified chronic pancreatitis: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic treatment: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2007; 56: 545-52. [Crossref] 239. Tandan M, Reddy DN, Santosh D, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endotherapy for pancreatic calculi- a large single center experience. Indian J Gastroenterol 2010; 29: 143-8. [Crossref] 240. Lawrence C, Siddiqi MF, Hamilton JN, et al. Chronic calcif - ic pancreatitis: combination ERCP and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones. South Med J 2010; 103: 505-8. [Crossref] 241. Milovic V, Wehrmann T, Dietrich CF, Bailey AA, Caspary WF, Bra- den B. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with a transportable mini-lithotripter and subsequent endoscopic treatment improves clinical outcome in obstructive calcific chronic pancreatitis. Gastro- intest Endosc 2011; 74: 1294-9. [Crossref] 242. Cahen DL, Gouma DJ, Laramée P, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic vs surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2011; 141: 1690-5. [Crossref] 243. Seven G, Schreiner MA, Ross AS, et al. Long-term outcomes associated with pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for chronic calcific pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 997- 1004. [Crossref] 244. Tandan M, Reddy DN, Talukdar R, et al. Long-term clinical out - comes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in painful chronic cal- cific pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 726-33. [Crossref] 245. Suzuki Y, Sugiyama M, Inui K, et al. Management for pancre - atolithiasis: a Japanese multicenter study. Pancreas 2013; 42: 584- 8. [Crossref] S34 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 246. Ohyama H, Mikata R, Ishihara T, et al. Efficacy of stone density on noncontrast computed tomography in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for patients with pancreatic stones. Pancreas 2015; 44: 422-8. [Crossref] 247. Hu LH, Ye B, Yang YG, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lith - otripsy for Chinese patients with pancreatic stones: A prospective study of 214 cases. Pancreas 2016; 45: 298-305. [Crossref] 248. Li BR, Liao Z, Du TT, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotrip - sy is a safe and effective treatment of pancreatic Stones coexiting with pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 1-10. 249. Korpela T, Udd M, Tenca A, et al. Long-term results of combined ESWL and ERCP treatment of chronic calcific pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016; 51: 866-71. [Crossref] 250. Vaysse T, Boytchev I, Antoni G, et al. Efficacy and safety of ex - tracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for chronic pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016; 51: 1380-5. [Crossref] 251. Lapp RT, Wolf JS Jr, Faerber GJ, et al. Duct diameter and size of stones predict successful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic clearance in patients with chronic pancreatitis and pan- creaticolithiasis. Pancreas 2016; 45: 1208-11. [Crossref] 252. Haraldsson S, Roug S, Nøjgaard C, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones: an observational study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018: 1-5. 253. Wang D, Ji JT, Xin L, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for chronic pancreatitis patients with stones after pancreatic sur - gery. Pancreas 2018; 47: 609-16. [Crossref] 254. Choi EK, McHenry L, Watkins JL, et al. Use of intravenous se - cretin during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to facilitate en - doscopic clearance of pancreatic duct stones. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 272-5. [Crossref] 255. Ohara H, Hoshino M, Hayakawa T, et al. Single application ex - tracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the first choice for patients with pancreatic duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 1388-94. 256. Inui K, Tazuma S, Yamaguchi T, et al. Treatment of pancreatic stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: results of a multi- center survey. Pancreas 2005; 30: 26-30. 257. Talukdar R, Reddy DN. Pancreatic endotherapy for chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endoscopy Clin N Am 2015; 25: 765-77. [Crossref] 258. Hirai T, Goto H, Hirooka Y, et al. Pilot study of pancreatoscopic lithotripsy using a 5-fr instrument: selected patients may benefit. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 212-6. [Crossref] 259. Howell DA, Dy RM, Hanson BL, Nezhad SF, Broaddus SB. En - doscopic treatment of pancreatic duct stones using a 10F pancre - atoscope and electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 829-33. [Crossref] 260. Fishman DS, Tarnasky PR, Patel SN, Raijman I. Management of pancreaticobiliary disease using a new intra-ductal endoscope: the Texas experience. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 1353-8. [Crossref] 261. Maydeo A, Kwek BE, Bhandari S, Bapat M, Dhir V. Single-opera- tor cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy in patients with difficult biliary and pancreatic ductal stones (with videos). Gastrointest En - dosc 2011; 74: 1308-14. [Crossref] 262. Alatawi A, Leblanc S, Vienne A, et al. Pancreatoscopy-guided intracorporeal laser lithotripsy for difficult pancreatic duct stones: a case series with prospective follow-up (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 179-83. [Crossref] 263. Attwell AR, Brauer BC, Chen YK, Yen RD, Fukami N, Shah RJ. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with per oral pancreatoscopy for calcific chronic pancreatitis using endoscope and catheter-based pancreatoscopes: a 10-year single-center ex - perience. Pancreas 2014; 43: 268-74. [Crossref] 264. Attwell AR, Patel S, Kahaleh M, Raijman IL, Yen R, Shah RJ. ERCP with per-oral pancreatoscopy-guided laser lithotripsy for cal - cific chronic pancreatitis: a multicenter U.S. experience. Gastroin - test Endosc 2015; 82: 311-8. [Crossref] 265. Kurihara T, Yasuda I, Isayama H, et al. Diagnostic and therapeu- tic single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy in biliopancreatic dis - eases: Prospective multicenter study in Japan. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 1891-901. [Crossref] 266. Bekkali NL, Murray S, Johnson GJ, et al. Pancreatoscopy-direct- ed electrohydraulic lithotripsy for pancreatic ductal stones in pain - ful chronic pancreatitis using SpyGlass. Pancreas 2017; 46: 528-30. [Crossref] 267. Gutierrez OIB, Rajman I, Shah RJ, et al. International multicenter study on digital single operator pancreatoscopy for the manage - ment of pancreatic stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB68. 268. Ogura T, Okuda A, Imanishi M, et al. Electrohydraulic lithotrip - sy for pancreatic duct stones under digital single-operator pancre - atoscopy (with Video). Dig Dis Sci 2018 Nov 19. [Crossref] 269. Rosch T, Daniel S, Scholz M, et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: a multicenter study of 1000 patients with long- term follow-up. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 765-71. [Crossref] 270. Delhaye M, Matos C, Devière J. Endoscopic management of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2003; 13: 717- 42. [Crossref] 271. Kim MH, Myung SJ, Kim YS, et al. Routine biliary sphincterotomy may not be indispensable for endoscopic pancreatic sphincteroto - my. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 697-701. [Crossref] 272. Sauer BG, Gurka MJ, Ellen K, Shami VM, Kahalen M. Effect of pancreatic duct stent diameter on hospitalization in chronic pan - creatitis: does size matter? Pancreas 2009; 38: 728-31. [Crossref] 273. Grimm H, Meyer WH, Nam WC, Soehendra N. New modalities for treating chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy 1989; 21: 70-4. [Crossref] 274. Cremer M, Devière J, Delhaye M, Baize M, Vandermeeren A. Stenting in severe chronic pancreatitis: results of medium-term follow-up in seventy-six patients. Endoscopy 1991; 23: 171-6. [Crossref] 275. Ponchon T, Bory RM, Hedelius F, et al. Endoscopic stenting for pain relief in chronic pancreatitis: results of a standardized protocol. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42: 452-6. [Crossref] 276. Smits ME, Badiga SM, Rauws EA, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K. Long-term results of pancreatic stents in chronic pancreatitis. Gas- trointest Endosc 1995; 42: 461-7. [Crossref] 277. Binmoeller KF, Jue P, Seifert H, Nam WC, Izbicki J, Soehendra N. Endoscopic pancreatic stent drainage in chronic pancreatitis and a dominant stricture: long-term results. Endoscopy 1995; 27: 638-44. [Crossref] 278. Laugier R, Renou C. Endoscopic ductal drainage may avoid re - sective surgery in painful chronic pancreatitis without large ductal dilatation. Int J Pancreatol 1998; 23: 145-52. [Crossref] 279. Morgan DE, Smith JK, Hawkins K, Wilcox CM. Endoscopic stent therapy in advanced chronic pancreatitis: relationships between ductal changes, clinical response, and stent patency. Am J Gastro - enterol 2003; 98: 821-6. [Crossref] 280. Díte P, Ruzicka M, Zboril V, Novotný I. A prospective, randomized trial comparingendoscopic and surgical therapy for chronic pancre- atitis. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 553-8. [Crossref] 281. Holm M, Matzen P. Stenting and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in chronic pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003; 38: 328-31. [Crossref] S35 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee 282. Vitale GC, Cothron K, Vitale EA, et al. Role of pancreatic duct stenting in the treatment of chronic pancreatitis. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 1431-4. [Crossref] 283. Gabbrielli A, Pandolfi M, Mutignani M, et al. Efficacy of main pancreatic duct endoscopic drainage in patientas with chronic pan- creatitis, continuous pain and dilated duct. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 576-81. [Crossref] 284. Eleftherladis N, Dinu F, Delhaye M, et al. Long-term outcome after pancreatic stenting in severe chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 223-30. [Crossref] 285. Topazian M, Aslanian H, Andersen D. Outcome following endo- scopic stenting of pancreatic duct strictures in chronic pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: 908-11. [Crossref] 286. Farnbacher MJ, Mühldorfer S, Wehler M, Fischer B, Hahn EG, Schneider HT. Interventional endoscopic therapy in chronic pancre - atitis including temporary stenting: a definitive treatment? Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 111-7. [Crossref] 287. Ishihara T, Yamaguchi T, Seza K, Tadenuma H, Saisho H. Effi - cacy of s-type stents for the treatment of the main pancreatic duct stricture in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 744-50. [Crossref] 288. Sasahira N, Tada M, Isayama H, et al. Outcomes after clearance of pancreatic stones with or without pancreatic stenting. J Gastro - enterol 2007; 42: 63-9. [Crossref] 289. Kim CH, Bang S, Song KH, et al. Analysis of the effects of stent insertion and the factors related to stent retrieval in chronic pan - creatitis accompanying main pancreatic duct obstruction. Gut Liver 2007; 1: 63-7. [Crossref] 290. Hirota M, Asakura T, Kanno A, et al. Long-period pancreatic stenting for painful chronic calcified pancreatitis required higher medical costs and frequent hospitalizations compared with surgery. Pancreas 2011; 40: 946-50. [Crossref] 291. Clarke B, Slivka A, Tomizawa Y, et al. Endoscopic therapy is effective for patients with chronic pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 795-802. [Crossref] 292. Weber A, Schneider J, Neu B, et al. Endoscopic stent therapy in patients with chronic pancreatitis: A 5-year follow-up study. WJG 2013; 19: 715-20. [Crossref] 293. Tantau A, Mandrutiu A, Leucuta DC, Ciobanu L, Tantau M. Prog- nostic factors of response to endoscopic treatment in painful chron- ic pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 6884-93. [Crossref] 294. Kawashima Y, Kawaguchi Y, Kawanishi A, et al. Comparison be- tween endoscopic treatment and surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct in chronic pancreatitis. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 2018; 43: 117-21. 295. Farnbacher MJ, Radespiel-Tröger M, König MD, Wehler M, Hahn EG, Schneider HT. Pancreatic endoprostheses in chronic pancreati - tis: criteria to predict stent occlusion. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 60-6. [Crossref] 296. ASGE Technology Assessment Committee, Pfau PR, Pleskow DK, et al. Pancreatic and biliary stents. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 319-27. [Crossref] 297. Costamagna G, Bulajic M, Tringali A, et al. Multiple stenting of refractory pancreatic duct strictures in severe chronic pancreatitis: longterm results. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 254-9. [Crossref] 298. Eisendrath P, Deviere J. Expandable metal stents for benign pancreatic duct obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1999; 9: 547-54. [Crossref] 299. Okushima K, Yoshino J, Inui K, Miyoshi H, Nakamura Y. Short- term metal stenting for treatment of main pancreatic duct strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis. Digestive Endoscopy 2005; 17: 230-4. [Crossref] 300. Park do H, Kim MH, Moon SH, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK. Fea - sibility and safety of placement of a newly designed, fully covered self-expandable metal stent for refractory benign pancreatic ductal strictures: a pilot study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 1182-9. [Crossref] 301. Sauer B, Talreja J, Ellen K, Ku J, Shami VM, Kahaleh M. Tempo - rary placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent in the pancreatic duct for management of symptomatic refractory chron - ic pancreatitis: preliminary data (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 1173-8. [Crossref] 302. Moon SH, Kim MH, Park do H, et al. Modified fully covered self-expandable metal stents with antimigration features for benign pancreatic-duct strictures in advanced chronic pancreatitis, with a focus on the safety profile and reducing migration. Gastrointest En- dosc 2010; 72: 86-91. [Crossref] 303. Giacino C, Grandval P, Laugier R. Fully covered selfexpanding metal stents for refractory pancreatic duct strictures in chronic pan- creatitis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 874-7. [Crossref] 304. Ogura T, Onda S, Takagi W, et al. Placement of a 6 mm, fully covered metal stent for main pancreatic head duct stricture due to chronic pancreatitis: a pilot study (with video). Therap Adv Gastro - enterol 2016; 9: 722-8. [Crossref] 305. Matsubara S, Sasahira N, Isayama H. Prospective pilot study of fully covered self-expandable metal stents for refractory benign pancreatic duct strictures: long-term outcomes. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E1215-22. [Crossref] 306. Yamada T, Ogura T, Okuda A, et al. Pilot Study of Dumb - bell-Type Covered Self expandable Metal Stent Deployment for Benign Pancreatic Duct Stricture (with Videos). J Gastrointest Surg 2018; 22: 2194-200. [Crossref] 307. Jeong IS, Lee SH, Oh SH, Park DH, Kim MK. Metal stents place - ment for refractory pancreatic duct stricture in children. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24: 408-14. [Crossref] 308. Oh D, Lee JH, Song TJ, et al. Long-term outcomes of 6-mm di - ameter fully covered selfexpandable metal stents in benign refrac - tory pancreatic ductal stricture. Digestive Endoscopy 2018; 30: 508- 15. [Crossref] 309. Tringali A, Vadalà di Prampero SF, Landi R, et al. Fully covered self-expandable metal stents to dilate persistent pancreatic stric - tures in chronic pancreatitis: long-term follow-up from a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 939-46. [Crossref] 310. Qin Z, Linghu EQ. Temporary placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent inthe pancreatic duct for aiding ex - traction of large pancreatic duct stones: preliminary data. Eur J Gas- troenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 1273-7. [Crossref] 311. Rimbas M, Larghi A. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tech - niques for accessing and draining the biliary system and the pan - creatic duct. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2017; 27: 681-705. [Crossref] 312. Dhir V, Isayama H, Itoi T, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonogra - phy-guided biliary and pancreatic duct interventions. Dig Endosc 2017; 29: 472-85. [Crossref] 313. Harada N, Kouzu T, Arima M, Asano T, Kikuchi T, Isono K. Endo- scopic ultrasound-guided pancreatography: a case report. Endosco- py 1995; 27: 612-5. [Crossref] 314. Wiersema MJ, Sandusky D, Carr R, Wiersema LM, Erdel WC, Frederick PK. Endosonography-guided cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 102-6. [Crossref] 315. Gress F, Ikenberry S, Sherman S, Lehman G. Endoscopic ultra - sound-directed pancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44: 736-9. [Crossref] S36 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 316. Bataille L, Deprez P. A new application for therapeutic EUS: main pancreatic duct drainage with a ‘’pancreatic rendezvous tech- nique.’’ Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 740-3. [Crossref] 317. Francois E, Kahaleh M, Giovannini M, Matos C, Deviere J. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 128-33. [Crossref] 318. Kahaleh M, Yoshida C, Yeaton P. EUS antegrade pancreatog - raphy with gastropancreatic duct stent placement: review of two cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 919-23. [Crossref] 319. Mallery S, Matlock J, Freeman ML. EUS-guided rendezvous drainage of obstructed biliary and pancreatic ducts: report of 6 cas- es. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 100-7. [Crossref] 320. Will U, Meyer F, Manger T, Wanzar I. Endoscopic ultrasound-as- sisted rendezvous maneuver to achieve pancreatic duct drainage in obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 171-3. [Crossref] 321. Mori N, Imazu H, Futagawa Y, et al. EUS-guided rendezvous drainage for pancreatic duct obstruction from stenosis of pancre - atojejunal anastomosis after pancreatoduodenostomy. Surg Lapa - rosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2012; 22: 236-8. [Crossref] 322. Gleeson FC, Pelaez MC, Petersen BT, Levy MJ. Drainage of an inaccessible main pancreatic duct via EUS-guided transgastric stenting through the minor papilla. Endoscopy 2007 Feb;39 Suppl 1: E313-4. [Crossref] 323. Das K, Kitano M, Komaki T, et al. Pancreatic ductal drainage by endoscopic ultrasound-assisted rendezvous technique for pain caused by ductal stricture with chronic pancreatitis. Dig Endosc 2010; 22: 217-9. [Crossref] 324. Onodera M, Kawakami H, Kuwatani M, et al. Endoscopic ultra - sound-guided transmural drainage for pancreatic fistula or pancre- atic duct dilation after pancreatic surgery. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1710-7. [Crossref] 325. Takikawa T, Kanno A, Masamune A, et al. Pancreatic duct drainage using EUS-guided rendezvous technique for stenotic pancreaticojejunostomy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 5182-6. [Crossref] 326. Hisa T, Momoi T, Shimizu T, Furutake M, Takamatsu M, Ohku - bo H. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade stone removal in a patient with pancreatic stones and anastomotic stricture after end- to-side pancreaticojejunostomy. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 452-4. [Crossref] 327. Will U, Fueldner F, Thieme A, et al. Transgastric pancreatogra - phy and EUSguided drainage of the pancreatic duct. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14: 377-82. [Crossref] 328. Kahaleh M, Hernandez AJ, Tokar J, Adams RB, Shami VM, Yea - ton P. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy: analysis of its efficacy to drain inaccessible pancreatic ducts. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 224-30. [Crossref] 329. Tessier G, Bories E, Arvanitakis M, et al. EUS-guided pancreato- gastrostomy and pancreatobulbostomy for the treatment of pain in patients with pancreatic ductal dilatation inaccessible for trans - papillary endoscopic therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 233- 41. [Crossref] 330. Ergun M, Aouattah T, Gillain C, Gigot JF, Hubert C, Deprez PH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage of pancreatic duct obstruction: long-term outcome. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 518-25. [Crossref] 331. Shah JN, Marson F, Weilert F, et al. Single-operator, single-ses - sion EUS-guided anterograde cholangiopancreatography in failed ERCP or inaccessible papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 56-64. [Crossref] 332. Villa JJ, Pe’rez-Miranda M, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, et al. Initial ex- perience with EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography for biliary and pancreatic duct drainage: a Spanish national survey. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 1133-41. [Crossref] 333. Kurihara T, Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Moriyasu F. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage after failed endo- scopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with ma - lignant and benign pancreatic duct obstructions. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 109-16. [Crossref] 334. Fujii LL, Topazian MD, Abu Dayyeh BK, et al. EUS-guided pan - creatic duct intervention: outcomes of a single tertiary-care refer - ral center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 854-64.e1. [Crossref] 335. Will U, Reichel A, Fueldner F, Meyer F. Endoscopic ultrasonogra- phy-guided drainage for patients with symptomatic obstruction and enlargement of the pancreatic duct. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 13140-51. [Crossref] 336. Oh D, Park do H, Cho MK, et al. Feasibility and safety of a ful - ly covered selfexpandable metal stent with antimigration proper - ties for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: early and midterm outcomes (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 366-73.e2. [Crossref] 337. Chen YI, Levy MJ, Moreels TG, et al. An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with en - teroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 170-7. [Crossref] 338. Tyberg A, Sharaiha RZ, Kedia P, et al. EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for pancreatic strictures after failed ERCP: multicenter in - ternational collaborative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 164- 9. [Crossref] 339. Adler DG, Lichtenstein D, Baron TH, et al. The role of endoscopy in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 933-7. [Crossref] 340. Wyse JM, Sahai AV. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Manage - ment of Pain in Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer: an Up- date. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2018; 16: 417-27. [Crossref] 341. Santosh D, Lakhtakia S, Gupta R, et al. Clinical trial: a random - ized trial comparing fluoroscopy guided percutaneous technique vs. endoscopic ultrasound guided technique of coeliac plexus block for treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29: 979-84. [Crossref] 342. Rana MV, Candido KD, Raja O, Knezevic NN. Celiac plexus block in the management of chronic abdominal pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2014; 18: 394. [Crossref] 343. Gress F, Schmitt C, Sherman S, Ikenberry S, Lehman G. A pro - spective randomized comparison of endoscopic ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided celiac plexus block for managing chronic pancreatitis pain. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 900-5. [Crossref] 344. Gress F, Schmitt C, Sherman S, Ciaccia D, Ikenberry S, Lehman G. Endocopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus block for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: a prospec - tive single center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 409-16. [Crossref] 345. Sahai AV, Wyse J. EUS-guided celiac plexus block for chronic pancreatitis: a placebo-controlled trial should be the first priority. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 430-1. author reply 431. [Crossref] 346. Puli SR, Reddy JB, Bechtold ML, Antillon MR, Brugge WR. EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pain due to chronic pan - creatitis or pancreatic cancer pain: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54: 2330-7. [Crossref] S37 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee 347. Kaufman M, Singh G, Das S, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic ul - trasound-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: 127-34. [Crossref] 348. Sey MS, Schmaltz L, Al-Haddad MA, et al. Effectiveness and safety of serial endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for chronic pancreatitis. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E56-9. [Crossref] 349. Levy MJ, Topazian MD, Wiersema MJ, et al. Initial evaluation of the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided direct Ganglia neurolysis and block. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 98-103. [Crossref] 350. Kappelle WFW, Bleys RLAW, van Wijck AJM, Siersema PD, Vleg- gaar FP. EUS-guided celiac ganglia neurolysis: a clinical and human cadaver study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 655-63. [Crossref] 351. Sahai AV, Lemelin V, Lam E, Paquin SC. Central vs. bilateral endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block or neurolysis: a comparative study of short-term effectiveness. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 326-9. [Crossref] 352. LeBlanc JK, DeWitt J, Johnson C, et al. A prospective random - ized trial of 1 versus 2 injections during EUS-guided celiac plexus block for chronic pancreatitis pain. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 835-42. [Crossref] 353. Leblanc JK, Al-Haddad M, McHenry L, et al. A prospective, ran - domized study of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pancreatic cancer: one injection or two? Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1300-7. [Crossref] 354. Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Elwassief A, Paquin SC, Sahai AV. Fatal complication after endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neu- rolysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: E267. [Crossref] 355. O’Toole TM, Schmulewitz N. Complication rates of EUS-guided celiac plexus blockade and neurolysis: results of a large case series. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 593-7. [Crossref] 356. Dua MM, Visser MC. Surgical approaches to chronic pancre - atitis: Indications and techniques. Dig Dis Sci 2017; 62: 1738-44. [Crossref] 357. D’Haese JG, Ceyhan GO, Demir IE, Tieftrunk E, Friess H. Treat - ment Options in Painful Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review. HPB 2014; 16: 512-21. [Crossref] 358. Ahmed Ali U, Pahlplatz JM, Nealon WH, van Goor H, Gooszen HG, Boermeester MA. Endoscopic or surgical intervention for painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (3): CD007884. [Crossref] 359. Ahmed Ali U, Nieuwenhuijs VB, van Eijck CH, et al. Clinical out - come in relation to timing of surgery in chronic pancreatitis: a nomo- gram to predict pain relief. Arch Surg 2012; 147: 925-32. [Crossref] 360. Yang CJ, Bliss LA, Freedman SD, et al. Surgery for chronic pan - creatitis: the role of early surgery in pain management. Pancreas 2015; 44: 819-23. [Crossref] 361. Ke N, Jia D, Huang W, et al. Earlier surgery improves outcomes from painful chronic pancreatitis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e0651. [Crossref] 362. Ahmed Ali U, Issa Y, Bruno MJ, et al. Early surgery versus optimal current step-up practice for chronic pancreatitis (ESCAPE): design and rationale of a randomized trial. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 49. [Crossref] 363. Jawad ZAR, Tsim N, Pai M, et al. Short and long-term post-operative outcomes of duodenum preserving pancreat - ic head resection for chronic pancreatitis affecting the head of pancreas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB 2016; 18: 121-8. [Crossref ] 364. Skube ME, Beilman GJ. Surgical treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2018; 34: 1-5. [Crossref] 365. Löhr JM, Dominguez-Munoz E, Rosendahl J, et al. HaPanEU/ UEG Working Group. United European Gastroenterology evi - dence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of chronic pancreatitis (HaPanEU) United European Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: 153-99. [Crossref] 366. Dominguez-Munoz JE, Iglesias-Garcia J. Oral pancreatic en - zyme substitution therapy in chronic pancreatitis: Is clinical re - sponse an appropriate marker for evaluation of therapeutic effica - cy? J Pancreas 2010; 11: 158-62. 367. Regan PT, Malagelada JR, DiMagno EP, Glanzman SL, Go VL. Comparative effects of antacids, cimetidine and enteric coating on the therapeutic response to oral enzymes in severe pancreatic insuf- ficiency. N Engl J Med 1977; 297: 854-8. [Crossref] 368. Roberts KJ, Schrem H, Hodson J, et al. Pancreas exocrine re - placement therapy is associated with increased survival following pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary malignancy. HPB (Ox - ford) 2017; 19: 859-67. [Crossref] 369. Layer P, Keller J, Lankisch PG. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2001; 3: 101-8. [Crossref] 370. Domínguez-Muñoz JE. Pancreatic enzyme therapy for pancre - atic exocrine insufficiency. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2007; 9: 116-22. [Crossref] 371. Sweetman S (ed). Martindale: The complete drug reference. 30th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 1999. 372. Bruno MJ, Borm JJ, Hoek FJ, et al. Gastric transit and pharma - codynamics of a two-millimeter enteric-coated pancreatin micro - sphere preparation in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1998; 43: 203-13. [Crossref] 373. Gelfond D, Ma C, Semler J, Borowitz D. Intestinal pH and gas - trointestinal transit profiles in cystic fibrosis patients measured by wireless motility capsule. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 2275-81. [Crossref] 374. Dutta SK, Rubin J, Harvey J. Comparative evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of a pH-sensitive enteric coated pancreatic en- zyme preparation with conventional pancreatic enzyme therapy in the treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Gastroenterolo - gy 1983; 84: 476-82. [Crossref] 375. Case CL, Henniges F, Barkin JS. Enzyme content and acid sta - bility of enteric- coated pancreatic enzyme products in vitro. Pan - creas 2005; 30: 180-3. [Crossref] 376. Kraisinger M, Hochhaus G, Stecenko A, Bowser E, Hendeles L. Clinical pharmacology of pancreatic enzymes in patients with cys - tic fibrosis and in vitro performance of microencapsulated formula - tions. J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 34: 158-66. [Crossref] 377. Halm U, Löser C, Löhr M, Katschinski M, Mössner J. A double blind, randomized, multicentre, crossover study to prove equiva - lence of pancreatin minimicrosphere versus microspheres in exo - crine pancreatic insuffiency. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 951-7. [Crossref] 378. Thorat V, Reddy N, Bhatia S, et al. Randomized clinical trial: the efficacy and safety of pancreatin enteric-coated minimicrospheres (Creon 40000 MMS) in patients with pancreatic exocrine insuffi - ciency due to chronic pancreatitis-a double-blind, placebo-con - trolled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 36: 426-36. [Crossref] 379. Whitcomb DC, Lehman GA, Vasileva G, et al. Pancrelipase de - layed-release capsules (CREON) for exocrine pancreatic insufficien- cy due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic surgery: A double-blind randomized trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2276-86. [Crossref] 380. Dominguez-Munoz JE, Iglesias-Garcia J, Iglesias-Rey M, Figue- iras A, Vilarino-Insua M. Effect of the administration schedule on the S38 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 therapeutic efficacy of oral pancreatic enzyme supplements in pa - tients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency: A randomized, three- way crossover study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 993-1000. [Crossref] 381. O’Keefe SJ, Cariem AK, Levy M. The exacerbation of pancreatic endocrine dysfunction by potent pancreatic exocrine supplements in patients with chronic pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001; 32: 319-23. [Crossref] 382. Safdi M, Bekal PK, Martin S, Saeed ZA, Burton F, Toskes PP. The effects of oral pancreatic enzymes (Creon 10 capsule) on steatorrhea: A multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial in subjects with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 2006; 33: 156-62. [Crossref] 383. DiMagno EP, Malagelada JR, Go VL, Moertel CG. Fate of orally ingested enzymes in pancreatic insufficiency. Comparison of two dosage schedules. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 1318-22. [Crossref] 384. Czako L, Takacs T, Hegyi P, et al. Quality of life assessment af - ter pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in chronic pancreatitis. Can J Gastroenterol 2003; 17: 597-603. [Crossref] 385. De la Iglesia-García D, Huang W, Szatmary P, et al. NIHR Pan - creas Biomedical Research Unit Patient Advisory Group. Efficacy of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in chronic pancreati - tis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2017; 66: 1354-5. [Crossref] 386. Gubergrits N, Malecka-Panas E, Lehman GA, et al. A 6-month, open-label clinical trial of pancrelipase delayed-release capsules (Creon) in patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic surgery. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 1152-61. [Crossref] 387. Heubi JE, Schaeffer D, Ahrens RC, et al. Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Microbial Lipase in Patients with Exocrine Pancreatic Insuffi - ciencydue to Cystic Fibrosis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Pediatr 2016; 176: 156-161.e1. [Crossref] 388. Domínguez-Muñoz JE, Nieto-Garcia L, López-Díaz J, Lari - no-Noia J, Abdulkader I, Iglesias-Garcia J. Impact of the treatment of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency on survival of patients with un - resectable pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 534. [Crossref] 389. Ritz MA, Fraser RJ, Di Matteo AC, et al. Evaluation of the 13C-triolein breath test for fat malabsorption in adult patients with cystic fibrosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19: 448-53. [Crossref] 390. Woestenenk JW, van der Ent CK, Houwen RH. Pancreatic en - zyme replacement therapy and coefficient of fat absorption in chil - dren and adolescents with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015; 61: 355-60. [Crossref] 391. Vecht J, Symersky T, Lamers CB, Masclee AM. Efficacy of lower than standard doses of pancreatic enzyme supplementation thera - py during acid inhibition in patients with pancreatic exocrine insuf - ficiency. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 40: 721-5. [Crossref] 392. Proesmans M, De Boeck K. Omeprazole, a proton pump inhibi - tor, improves residual steatorrhoea in cystic fibrosis patients treated with high dose pancreatic enzymes. Eur J Pediatr 2003; 162: 760-3. [Crossref] 393. Francisco MP, Wagner MH, Sherman JM, Theriaque D, Bowser E, Novak DA. Ranitidine and omeprazole as adjuvant therapy to pan - crelipase to improve fat absorption in patients with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2002; 35: 79-83. [Crossref] 394. Sander-Struckmeier S, Beckmann K, Janssen-van Solingen G, Pollack P. Retrospective Analysis to Investigate the Effect of Con - comitant Use of Gastric Acid Suppressing Drugs on the Efficacy and Safety of Pancrelipase/Pancreatin (CREON) in Patients with Pan - creatic Exocrine Insufficiency. Pancreas 2013; 42: 983-9. [Crossref] 395. Etemad B, Whitcomb DC. Chronic pancreatitis: Diagnosis, clas- sification, and new genetic developments. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 682-707. [Crossref] 396. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 193-203. [Crossref] 397. Ali S, Fonseca V. Overview of metformin: special focus on met - formin extended release. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2012; 13: 1797- 805. [Crossref] 398. Ammann RW, Akovbiantz A, Largiader F, Schueller G. Course and outcome of chronic pancreatitis: Longitudinal study of a mixed medical-surgical series of 245 patients. Gastroenterology 1984; 86: 820-8. 399. Hao L, Pan J, Wang D, Bi Y, Ji J, Xin L. Risk factors and nomo - gram for pancreatic pseudocysts in chronic pancreatitis: A cohort of 1998 patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017: 32: 1403-11. [Crossref] 400. Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, et al. Classification of acute Pancreatitis 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and defini - tions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62: 102-11. [Crossref] 401. Markus ML, Stier A, Wahnschaffe U, Mayerle J. Pancreatic Pseudocysts Observation, Endoscopic Drainage, or Resection? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2003; 85: 313-6. 402. Cheruvu CV, Clarke MG, Prentice M, Eyre-Brook IA. Conservative treatment as an option in the management of pancreatic pseudo - cyst. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2003; 85: 313-6. [Crossref] 403. Rasch S, Nötzel B, Phillip V, Lahmer T, Schmid RM, Algül H. Man- agement of pancreatic pseudocysts-A retrospective analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0184374. [Crossref] 404. Bradley EL 3rd. A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta. Arch Surg 1993; 128: 586-90. [Crossref] 405. Zhao X, Feng T, Ji W. Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for pancreatic pseudocyst. Dig Endosc 2016; 28: 83-91. [Crossref] 406. Khreiss M, Zenati M, Clifford A, et al. Cyst Gastrostomy and Ne- crosectomy for the Management of Sterile Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis: a Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgical and Endo - scopic Outcomes at a High-Volume Pancreatic Center. J Gastroin - test Surg 2015; 19: 1441-8. [Crossref] 407. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Sutton BS, Trevino JM, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Equal efficacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastros - tomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial. Gas- troenterology 2013; 145: 583-90. [Crossref] 408. Varadarajulu S, Lopes TL, Wilcox CM, Drelichman ER, Kilgore ML, Christein JD. EUS versus surgical cyst-gastrostomy for man - agement of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 649-55. [Crossref] 409. Keane MG, Sze SF, Cieplik N, et al. Endoscopic versus percuta - neous drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a 14- year experience from a tertiary hepatobiliary centre. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 3730-40. [Crossref] 410. Akshintala VS, Saxena P, Zaheer A, et al. A comparative evalu - ation of outcomes of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 921-8. [Crossref] 411. Hollinghead W. The lower part of the common bile duct, a re - view. Surg Clin North Am 1957; 37: 939-52. [Crossref] 412. Eckhauser F, Knol J, Strodel W, Achem S, Nostrant T. Common bile duct strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis. Am Surg 1983; 49: 350-8. S39 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee 413. Abdallah AA, Krige JEJ, Bornman PC. Biliary tract obstruction in chronic pancreatitis. HPB (Oxford) 2007; 9: 421-8. [Crossref] 414. Frey C, Suzuki M, Isaji S. Treatment of chronic pancreatitis by obstruction of the bile duct or duodenum. World J Surg 1990; 14: 59- 69. [Crossref] 415. Devière J, Devaere S, Baize M, Cremer M. Endoscopic biliary drainage in chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 1990; 36: 96- 100. [Crossref] 416. Smits ME, Rauws EA, van Gulik TM, Gouma DJ, Tytgat GN, Hui - bregtse K. Long-term results of endoscopic stenting and surgical drainage for biliary stricture due to chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1996; 83: 764-8. [Crossref] 417. Vitale GC, Reed DN Jr, Nguyen CT, Lawhon JC, Larson GM. En - doscopic treatment of distal bile duct stricture from chronic pancre- atitis. Surg Endosc 200; 14: 227-31. Erratum in: Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 411. [Crossref] 418. Farnbacher MJ, Rabenstein T, Ell C, Hahn EG, Schneider HT. Is endoscopic drainage of common bile duct stenoses in chronic pancreatitis up-to-date? Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1466-71. [Crossref] 419. Eickhoff A, Jakobs R, Leonhardt A, Eickhoff JC, Riemann JF. En- doscopic stenting for common bile duct stenoses in chronic pancre- atitis: results and impact on long-term outcome. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001; 13: 1161-7. [Crossref] 420. Kahl S, Zimmermann S, Genz I, et al. Risk factors for failure of endoscopic stenting of biliary strictures in chronic pancreatitis: a prospective follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2448-53. [Crossref] 421. Catalano MF, Linder JD, George S, Alcocer E, Geenen JE. Treat - ment of symptomatic distal common bile duct stenosis secondary to chronic pancreatitis: comparison of single vs. multiple simultaneous stents. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 945-52. [Crossref] 422. Regimbeau JM, Fuks D, Bartoli E, et al. A comparative study of surgery and endoscopy for the treatment of bile duct stricture in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 2902-8. [Crossref] 423. Haapamäki C, Kylänpää L, Udd M, et al. Randomized multi - center study of multiple plastic stents vs. covered self-expandable metallic stent in the treatment of biliary stricture in chronic pancre- atitis. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 605-10. [Crossref] 424. Draganov P, Hoffman B, Marsh W, Cotton P, Cunningham J. Long-term outcome in patients with benign biliary strictures treated endoscopically with multiple stents. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 680-6. [Crossref] 425. Pozsár J, Sahin P, László F, Forró G, Topa L. Medium-term re - sults of endoscopic treatment of common bile duct strictures in chronic calcifying pancreatitis with increasing numbers of stents. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 38: 118-23. [Crossref] 426. Devière J, Nageshwar Reddy D, et al. Benign Biliary Stenoses Working Group. Successful management of benign biliary strictures with fully covered self-expanding metal stents. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 385-95. [Crossref] 427. Cahen DL, van Berkel AM, Oskam D, et al. Long-term results of endoscopic drainage of common bile duct strictures in chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 17: 103-8.[Crossref] 428. Heider TR, Azeem S, Galanko JA, Behrns KE. The natural histo - ry of pancreatitis-induced splenic vein thrombosis. Ann Surg 2004; 239: 876-80. [Crossref] 429. Loftus JP, Nagorney DM, Ilstrup D, Kunselman AR. Sinistral por- tal hypertension. Splenectomy or expectant management. Ann Surg 1993; 217: 35-40. [Crossref] 430. Sarin SK, Lahoti D, Saxena SP, Murthy NS, Makwana UK. Preva- lence, classification and natural history of gastric varices: a longterm follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients. Hepatology 1992; 16: 1343-9. [Crossref] 431. Wani ZA, Bhat RA, Bhadoria AS, Maiwall R, Choudhury A. Gastric varices: classification, endoscopic and ultrasonographic manage - ment. J Res Med Sci 2015; 20: 1200-7. [Crossref] 432. Artifon ELA, Marson FP, Khan MA. Endoscopic ultrasonogra - phy-guided hemostasis techniques. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2017; 27: 741-7. [Crossref] 433. Al-Hillawi L, Wong T, Tritto G, Berry PA. Pitfalls in histoacryl glue injection therapy for oesophageal, gastric and ectopic varices: A re - view. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 8: 729-34. [Crossref] 434. Levy MJ, Wong Kee Song LM, Kendrick ML, Misra S, Gostout CJ. EUS-guided coil embolization for refractory ectopic variceal bleed - ing (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 572-4. [Crossref] 435. Romero-Castro R, Pellicer-Bautista F, Giovannini M, et al. En - doscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided coil embolization therapy in gas- tric varices. Endoscopy 2010; 42 Suppl 2: E35-6. [Crossref] 436. Romero-Castro R, Ellrichmann M, Ortiz-Moyano C, et al. EUS-guided coil versus cyanoacrylate therapy for the treatment of gastric varices: a multicenter study (with videos). Gastrointest En - dosc 2013; 78: 711-21. [Crossref] 437. Arakawa M, Masuzaki T, Okuda K. Pathology of fundic varices of the stomach and rupture. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 17: 1064-9. [Crossref] 438. Sakorafas GH, Sarr MG, Farley DR, Farnell MB. The significance of sinistral portal hypertension complicating chronic pancreatitis. Am J Surg 2000; 179: 129-33. [Crossref] 439. Agarwal AK, Raj Kumar K, Agarwal S, Singh S. Significance of splenic vein thrombosis in chronic pancreatitis. Am J Surg 2008; 196: 149-54. [Crossref] 440. Sathyamoorthy B, Sankareshwaran S, Vellaisamy R, et al. Need For Splenectomy in the Management of Asymptomatic Splenic Vein Thrombosis While Undergoing Surgery for Chronic Pancreatitis. J Pancreas (Online) 2017; 18: 12-8. 441. Rebours V, Boudaoud L, Vullierme MP, et al. Extrahepatic portal venous system thrombosis in recurrent acute and chronic alcoholic pancreatitis is caused by local inflammation and not thrombophilia. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1579-85. [Crossref] 442. Harris S, Naina H, Chari S, et al. Does anticoagulation for ve - nous thromboembolism in acute pancreatitis result in pancreatic and/or peri-pancreatic bleeding? Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 4: A-375. [Crossref] 443. Pribramska V, Vege S, Trna J, et al. Natural history of splanchnic venous thrombosis in acute pancreatitis: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 5: A-541. [Crossref] 444. Harris S, Nadkarni NA, Naina HV, Vege SS. Splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis: a single-center experience. Pan - creas 2013; 42: 1251-4. [Crossref] 445. Pang TC, Maher R, Gananadha S, Hugh TJ, Samra JS. Peripan - creatic pseudoaneurysms: a management-based classification sys- tem. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2027-38. [Crossref] 446. De Perrot M, Buhler L, Schneider PA, Mentha G, Morel P. Do an- eurysms and pseudoaneurysms of the splenic artery require different surgical strategy? Hepatogastroenterology. 1999; 46: 2028-32. 447. Udd M, Leppäniemi AK, Bidel S, Keto P, Roth WD, Haapiainen RK. Treatment of bleeding pseudoaneurysms in patients with chron- ic pancreatitis. World J Surg 2007; 31: 504-10. [Crossref] 448. Verde F, Fishman EK, Johnson PT. Arterial pseudoaneurysms complicating pancreatitis: literature review. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2015; 39: 7-12. [Crossref] S40 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 449. Roach H, Roberts SA, Salter R, Williams IM, Wood AM. Endo - scopic ultrasound-guided thrombin injection for the treatment of pancreatic pseudoaneurysm. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 876-8. [Crossref] 450. Jeffers K, Majumder S, Vege SS, Levy M. EUS-guided pancreatic pseudoaneurysm therapy: better to be lucky than good. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1155-6. [Crossref] 451. Jhajharia A, Wanjari S, Ashdhir P, Sharma D, Pokharna R, Ni - jhawan S. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided thrombin injection for management of visceral artery pseudoaneurysm: A novel approach. Indian J Gastroenterol 2018; 37: 271-5. [Crossref] 452. Rai P, Kc H, Goel A, Aggarwal R, Sharma M. Endoscopic ultra - sound-guided coil and glue for treatment of splenic artery pseu - do-aneurysm: new kid on the block! Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E821- 5. [Crossref] 453. Bergert H, Dobrowolski F, Caffier S, Bloomenthal A, Hinterseher I, Saeger HD. Prevalence and treatment of bleeding complications in chronic pancreatitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2004; 389: 504-10. [Crossref] 454. Zhang P, Li H, Tan X, Chen L, Wang S. Association of metformin use with cancer incidence and mortality: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol 2013; 37: 207-18. [Crossref] 455. Ambe CM, Mahipal A, Fulp J, Chen L, Malafa MP. Effect of Met- formin Use on Survival in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-In- stitution Experience and Review of the Literature. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0151632. [Crossref] 456. Libby G, Donnelly LA, Donnan PT, Alessi DR, Morris AD, Evans JM. New users of metformin are at low risk of incident cancer: a co - hort study among people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 1620-5. [Crossref] 457. Zhou PT, Li B, Liu FR, et al. Metformin is associated with survival benefit in pancreatic cancer patients with diabetes: a systematic re- view and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 25242-50. [Crossref] 458. Gong J, Robbins LA, Lugea A, Waldron RT, Jeon CY, Pandol SJ. Diabetes, pancreatic cancer, and metformin therapy. Front Physiol 2014; 5: 426. [Crossref] 459. Chen K, Qian W, Jiang Z, et al. Metformin suppresses cancer initiation and progression in genetic mouse models of pancreatic cancer. Molecular Cancer 2017; 16: 131. [Crossref] 460. Salvatore Salvatore T, Marfella R, Rizzo MR, Sasso FC. Pancre - atic cancer and diabetes: A two-way relationship in the perspective of diabetologist. Int J Surg 2015; 21 Suppl 1: 72-7. [Crossref] 461. Inoue M, Iwasaki M, Otani T, Sasazuki S, Noda M, Tsugane S. Diabetes mellitus and the risk of cancer: results from a large-scale population-based cohort study in Japan. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 1871-7. [Crossref] 462. Dong YW, Shi YQ, He LW, Cui XY, Su PZ. Effects of metformin on survival outcomes of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncotar - get 2017; 8: 55478-88. [Crossref] 463. Wan G, Sun X, Li F, et al. Survival Benefit of Metformin Adjuvant Treatment For Pancreatic Cancer Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem 2018; 49: 837-47. [Crossref] 464. Jian-Yu E, Graber JM, Lu SE, Lin Y, Lu-Yao G, Tan XL. Effect of Metformin and Statin Use on Survival in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis. Curr Med Chem 2018; 25: 2595-607. [Crossref] 465. Zhang JW, Sun Q. Metformin may improve the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16: 3937-40. [Crossref] 466. Wang Z, Lai ST, Xie L, et al. Metformin is associated with re - duced risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014; 106: 19-26. [Crossref] 467. Ruiter R, Visser LE, van Herk-Sukel MP, et al. Lower risk of can - cer in patients on metformin in comparison with those on sulfony - lurea derivatives: results from a large population-based follow-up study. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 119-24. [Crossref] 468. Decensi A, Puntoni M, Goodwin P, et al. Metformin and can - cer risk in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2010; 3: 1451-61. [Crossref] 469. Singh S, Singh PP, Singh AG, Murad MH, McWilliams RR, Chari ST. Anti-diabetic medications and risk of pancreatic cancer in pa - tients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analy - sis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 510-9. [Crossref] 470. Beyer G, Mahajan UM, Budde C, et al. Development and Vali - dation of a Chronic Pancreatitis Prognosis Score in 2 Independent Cohorts. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 1544-54.e2. [Crossref] 471. Bang UC, Benfield T, Hyldstrup L, Bendtsen F, Beck Jensen JE. Mortality, cancer, and comorbidities associated with chronic pan - creatitis: a Danish nationwide matched-cohort study. Gastroenter - ology 2014; 146: 989-94. [Crossref] 472. Lew D, Afghani E, Pandol S. Chronic Pancreatitis: Current Sta - tus and Challenges for Prevention and Treatment. Dig Dis Sci 2017; 62: 1702-12. [Crossref] 473. Ahmed Ali U, Issa Y, van Goor H, et al. Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. Dutch Chronic Pancreatitis Registry (CARE): design and ra - tionale of a nationwide prospective evaluation and follow-up. Pan - creatology 2015; 15: 46-52. [Crossref] 474. Xiao AY, Tan ML, Wu LM, et al. Global incidence and mortality of pancreatic diseases: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and me- ta-regression of population-based cohort studies. Lancet Gastroen- terol Hepatol 2016; 1: 45-55. [Crossref] 475. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Cavallini G, et al. Prognosis of chronic pancreatitis: an international multicenter study. Inter - national Pancreatitis Study Group. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 1467-71. 476. Whitcomb DC, Preston RA, Aston CE, et al. A gene for hereditary pancreatitis maps to chromosome 7q35. Gastroenterology 1996; 110: 1975-80. [Crossref] 477. Alsamarrai A, Das SL, Windsor JA, Petrov MS. Factors that affect risk for pancreatic disease in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Clin Gastro- enterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1635-44.e5; quiz e103. [Crossref] S41 Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31(Suppl 1) S1-41 Soytürk et al. Chronic Pancreatitis Consensus Committee