Recurring concern
Inadequate guidance for managing oesophageal strictures and transition to stenting
- Reports that mention this concern
- 2
- Times this concern has been raised
- 4
- Stated actions linked to this concern
- 3
What this concern includes
Includes failures of guidance, protocols, evidence or decision criteria specifically dedicated to managing oesophageal strictures, repeated dilatation, stenting, perforation risk and decisions about when or how to transition between these treatments.
What is not included
- Excludes generic clinical-guidance or evidence deficiencies not specifically concerning oesophageal stricture management.
- Excludes general oesophageal-cancer treatment failures that do not concern stricture management, dilatation or stenting.
- Excludes isolated complications or poor outcomes where no deficiency in the stricture-management guidance or decision process is identified.
- Excludes unrelated procedural guidance, treatment-duration decisions or stenting concerns involving other conditions.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Reports and published responses 2 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
-
Concerns raised3
Limited evidence on the risks of stenting oesophageal strictures
Lack of national guidance and evidence-based best practice for treating oesophageal strictures
Lack of evidence on the optimum number of dilatations and when to stop dilatation and consider stenting
Linked responses
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
- NHS England
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
-
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Further consider concerns about contraindications for stenting and whether NICE advice should be strengthened.
-
NHS England
Develop national, evidence-based advice or guidance for managing post-radiotherapy oesophageal stenting cases with AUGIS and NICE.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
NHS England
GM Cancer Alliance, through its Oesophago-Gastric Pathway Board, is responsible for developing the stenting pathway and completing MDT Reform actions.
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of detailed national guidance on management of oesophageal strictures and when and how to approach stenting
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
- NHS England
- NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
NHS England
Discuss the Report and updated NICE guidance with the Cancer Clinical Advisory Group before publication to consider immediate actions.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board
NICE is responsible for developing detailed national guidance on managing oesophageal strictures and stenting.
-
NHS England
Complex oesophageal cancer cases require individual multidisciplinary team management, so national guidance does not cover every aspect of care.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Data last updated 7 September 2026