Oncologic safety of stent as bridge to surgery compared to emergency radical surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction

Long-Term Outcomes of Self-Expandable Metallic Stents as a Bridge to Surgery for Obstructive and Symptomatic Primary Tumors of Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Score Analysis

Background: Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) was introduced for the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC) a few decades ago. However, its long-term outcomes remain controversial, especially for stage IV CRC. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcomes of SEMS as a "bridge to surgery" (BTS) for obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors in stage IV CRC by one-to-one propensity-score matching. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single center from January 2007 to December 2017. Patients with obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors of stage IV CRC underwent primary resection (PR) or placement of a SEMS as a BTS. They were divided into SEMS and PR groups, and their short- and long-term outcomes were compared. Results: In total, 52 patients were reviewed (SEMS group, 21; PR group, 31). Sixteen patients in both groups were matched using propensity scores. Patients in the SEMS group more frequently underwent laparoscopic surgery than those in the PR group (75% versus 19%, P = .004). The two groups showed no significant differences in perioperative and pathological outcomes. The 5-year overall survival was not significantly different between groups (29% versus 20%, P = .53). Conclusions: As a BTS, the use of SEMS for obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors in CRC stage IV can be a comparable option to PR in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, and would be less invasive with respect to surgical procedures.

Which treatment strategy is optimal for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction? A Bayesian meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the best treatment for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (ALMCO) among emergency surgery (ES), self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS), transanal drainage tube (TD), and decompressive stoma (DS).

METHOD

Articles that compared two or more treatments of ALMCO were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Network meta-analyses were performed to calculate the outcomes of primary anastomosis, stoma creation, morbidity, mortality, and 5-year survival.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles met inclusion criteria. TD was the optimal treatment in performing primary anastomosis [probability of ranking first (Pro-1) 0.96], while ES was the worst [probability of ranking fourth (Pro-4) 0.99]. More permanent stoma was formed in ES and TD groups than in SEMS and DS groups [OR (95%CI): TD vs SEMS: 4.12 (1.89, 9.45); TD vs DS: 3.39 (1.46, 8.75); ES vs DS: 2.55 (1.73, 4.17); SEMS vs ES: 0.33 (0.24, 0.42)]. More morbidity occurred in ES group than in SEMS group [OR (95%CI): ES vs SEMS: 1.44 (1.14, 1.82)]. Besides, SEMS was ranked first in avoiding infection (Pro-4 0.95). For in-hospital mortality, ES was ranked first (Pro-1 0.93). TD was ranked first in recurrence (Pro-1 0.97) and metastasis (Pro-1 0.98). There was no discrepancy in 5-year overall and disease-free survival among all strategies.

CONCLUSION

SEMS as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation, and morbidity especially the infection rate with relatively great oncological outcomes. Therefore, SEMS should be recommended first for ALMCO in the medical center with experience and conditions.

Surgical management and outcomes of obstructive colorectal cancer in elderly patients: A multi-institutional retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The outcomes and prognostic factors of elderly patients with obstructive colorectal cancer are unknown. This was the focus of our multi-institutional retrospective study.

METHODS

Medical records of 520 patients (elderly [group E, aged ≥75 years, n = 271]; and nonelderly [group NE, aged <75 years, n = 249]) who received treatment for obstructive colorectal cancer in 2008 to 2018 at 14 leading hospitals in Kagawa prefecture (Japan) were reviewed. Short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent tumor resection (n = 438) were compared between the groups. Their prognostic factors were identified.

RESULTS

The tumor resection rate was 79% (n = 213) and 90% (n = 225) in groups E and NE, respectively. Group E had more emergency resections (27 [12.7%] vs 15 [6.6%], P = .037), shorter operating times (194 vs 221 min, P < .001), fewer dissected lymph nodes (14 vs 17, P = .004), and less adjuvant chemotherapy (47 [26.8%] vs 122 [76.7%], p < .001) than group NE. Postoperative complication rates and recurrence-free survival were not significantly different between the groups. Overall survival was significantly lower in group E than in group NE. Distant metastases and no postoperative chemotherapy were independent poor prognostic factors for overall survival in groups E and NE. Emergency resection (hazard ratio:1.83; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-3.26) was a significant poor prognostic indicator in group E only.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term outcomes and recurrence-free survival of elderly and nonelderly patients with obstructive colorectal cancer were similar, although the 90-day mortality rate of the elderly patients was higher. Furthermore, elective surgery after bowel decompression is associated with a better outcome in the elderly.

Short-term outcomes after self-expandable metal stent insertion for obstructing colon cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are used as a bridge to surgery for colon cancer patients as an alternative to emergency surgery. Currently, there is a paucity of literature from Saudi Arabia on the preoperative usage of SEMS.

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether SEMS are associated with a higher rate of complications.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study SETTINGS: Tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In patients diagnosed with obstructing colon cancer, up-front surgical resection was compared with insertion of SEMS followed by surgical resection between the years 2009 and 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of stent-related short-term complications. Secondary endpoint, postoperative complications.

SAMPLE SIZE

65.

RESULTS

Twenty-four (36.9%) patients underwent SEMS placement; 41 (63.1%) underwent primary surgery. The median (interquartile range) hospital stay was significantly higher among the SEMS group (13 [8.5] days versus 7 [3] days in the primary surgery group, P<.001). Five patients (20.8%) in the SEMS group developed complications: 2 (8.3%) perforations, 2 (8.3%) obstructions, and 1 (4.2%) stent migrations.

CONCLUSION

SEMS is associated with longer hospital stays and short-term serious complications. Further research should be conducted, preferably with a larger sample size.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, small sample size.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Bridge to surgery using a self-expandable metallic stent for stages II-III obstructive colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Bridge to surgery (BTS) using a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) for the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer improves the patient's quality of life. This study aimed to examine prognostic factors of obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed stage II-III resectable colon cancer cases (Cur A) retrospectively registered between January 2005 and December 2017. Overall, 117 patients with Cur A obstructive colorectal cancer were evaluated: 67 of them underwent emergency surgery (ES Group) and 50 of them after BTS with SEMS placement (BTS group). We compared surgical results and prognoses between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients underwent endoscopic SEMS placement, which technical success of 96% and morbidity rate of 18%. Primary anastomosis rates were 77.6% in ES and 95.7% in BTS (p <  0.001); postoperative complication, 46.3% in ES and 10.5% in BTS (p <  0.001); pathological findings of lymphatic invasion, 66.7% in ES and 100% in BTS (p <  0.001); venous invasion were 66.8% in ES and 92% in BTS (p = 0.04); and recurrence of 25.4% in ES and 39.1% in BTS. The 3-year overall survival was significantly different between two groups (ES, 86.8%:BTS, 58.8%), BTS is worse than ES (log-rank test; p <  0.001). Venous invasion independently predicted worsened recurrence-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The vascular invasiveness was correlated with tumor progression after SEMS placement, and the survival rate was lower in BTS. SEMS potentially worsens prognostic outcomes in stage II-III obstructive colorectal cancer.

Comprehensive literature review of randomized clinical trials examining novel treatment advances in patients with colon cancer

The treatment of colon cancer has had numerous recent advances, in terms of surgical approach, adjuvant therapies, and more. In this review, the authors examine randomized clinical trials comparing open surgery to laparoscopic surgery (including total mesocolic excision), and also examine the role of robotic surgery. Novel surgical techniques including the no-touch technique, side-to-side anastomosis, suture technique, complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL), and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are outlined. The role of placing endoscopic self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for colonic obstruction is compared and contrasted with the surgical approach, and the effect that the anti-VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab may have on this side effect profile is further explored. The role of the resection of the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic disease is examined with respect to survival benefit. Pathways of perioperative care which can accelerate post-surgical recovery, including enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are examined. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III disease is examined, along with the role on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as well as with the biologic targeted agents cetuximab and bevacizumab. Lastly, the authors detail the postoperative surveillance schedules after surgical resection with respect to survival outcomes.

Comparison of colonic stents, stomas and resection for obstructive left colon cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgery (ES) is the standard-of-care for left-sided obstructing colon cancer, with self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) and diverting colostomies (DCs) being alternative approaches. The aim of this study was to review the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS versus ES or DC.

METHODS

Embase and Medline were searched for articles comparing SEMS versus ES or DC. Primary outcomes were survival and recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative outcomes. SEMS-specific outcomes include success and complication rates. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were estimated with DerSimonian and Laird random effects used to account for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included, involving 15,224 patients in 8 randomized controlled trials and 25 observational studies. There were high technical and clinical success rates for SEMS, with low rates of complications. Our meta-analysis revealed increased odds of laparoscopic surgery and anastomosis, and decreased stoma creation with SEMS compared to ES. SEMS led to fewer complications, including anastomotic leak, wound infection, ileus, myocardial infarction, and improved 90-day in-hospital mortality. There were no significant differences in 3- and 5-year overall, cancer-specific and disease-free survival. SEMS, compared to DC, led to decreased rates of stoma creation, higher rates of ileus and reoperation, and led to longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS leads to better short-term outcomes but confers no survival advantage over ES. It is unclear whether SEMS has better short-term outcomes compared to DC. There is a lack of randomized trials with long-term outcomes for SEMS versus DC, hence results should be interpreted with caution.

Better recurrence-free survival after stent bridge to surgery compared to emergency surgery for obstructive left-sided colonic cancer in patients with stage III status of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC): a bicentric retrospective study

PURPOSE

Stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) can transform an emergency surgery (ES) into an elective surgery in patients with symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. Concerns have been raised regarding short-term morbidity and long-term oncologic outcomes, with contrasting results reported in the literature. Our main aim is to evaluate not only long-term oncologic outcomes but also short-term postoperative outcomes of stented patients who underwent elective surgery compared to those who had ES.

METHODS

From January 2006 to May 2012, we retrospectively identified patients with confirmed left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction. This was done in two centers of reference of colorectal diseases in southern Spain with patients who were treated with curative intent either with ES or SBTS. The short- and long-term results were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

There were 71 patients in the stenting group and 66 in the emergency surgery group, with similar demographic data. Initial stoma creation rates were lower in the SBTS group (16.9% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.005) and the primary anastomosis rate was higher in the same group (83.1% vs. 45.5%, p < 0.005). Five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were comparable between groups (75.3 vs. 59.8%, p = 0.220), but RFS rates at 5 years for AJCC pathologic stage III were higher in the stenting group (69.7% vs 30%, p = 0.004). Both groups were comparable regarding overall and cancer-specific survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SBTS reduces ostomy rates in patients with obstructive colon malignancies. Long-term survival results are similar. Patients in the SBTS group with stage III AJCC status showed a higher 5-year recurrence-free survival rate than those in the ES group.

Self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for acute obstructive colorectal cancer: a retrospective study

Purpose: Acute obstructive colorectal cancer is a common emergency that requires decompression immediately. The aim of the study was to compare short-term and long-term results of acute obstructive colorectal cancer treated by the self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge to surgery (BTS) versus emergency surgery.

Patients and methods: We retrospectively reviewed 78 patients who were diagnosed as acute obstructive colorectal cancer that underwent elective surgery after stent insertion (stent group, N=37) or emergency surgery (emergency group, N=41) from January 2013 to October 2016. The Kaplan–Meier method was conducted to calculate overall survival. Univariate analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney U analysis, Pearson’s chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test. In addition, continuous variables were compared using the Student’s t-test.

Results: The baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The stent group had increased preoperative serum albumin level and decreased ASA risk score. In addition, operation time, diet time, harvested lymph nodes and total stoma creation of the stent group were better than that of the emergency group. The complications and mortality during hospitalization were not significantly different between the two groups. The overall survival was not significantly different while the quality of life of survival patients in the stent group was better than that of the emergency group.

Conclusion: For acute obstructive colorectal cancer, a stent as a BTS seems to be a safe and feasible alternative option for emergency surgery in the management of acute obstructive colorectal cancer.

Bridge-to-surgery versus emergency surgery in the management of left-sided acute malignant colorectal obstruction - Efficacy, safety and long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Compare efficacy, safety and long-term outcomes of bridge-to-surgery and emergency surgery in acute malignant colorectal obstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 94 consecutive patients with left-sided acute malignant colorectal obstruction treated with curative intent between 2010-2017.

RESULTS

48 patients underwent stent placement and 46 underwent emergency surgery. Technical and clinical success were 100% and 87%. Laparoscopy and one-staged operation were more frequent in bridge-to-surgery (44% vs 2%, p < 0.001; 73% vs 30%, p < 0.001). Fewer permanent stomas were created in bridge-to-surgery (15% vs 35%, p = 0.013). Overall morbidity was 36%. Immediate and post-procedure stent related-complications occurred in 6% and 13%; surgery-related complications occurred in 28% (bridge-to-surgery: 15% vs emergency surgery: 41%, p = 0.004). No differences were found regarding tumor recurrence, recurrence-free survival and overall survival. R1 resection (HR 47.2, _95%CI:4.1-543.7), number of lymph nodes harvested (HR 0.9 _95%CI:0.8-0.99) and adjuvant therapy (HR 0.1 _95%CI:0.01-0.9) predicted recurrence-free survival; pTMN stage IV (HR 7.3, _95%CI:1.1-47.6), number of lymph nodes harvested (HR 0.90, _95%CI:0.8-0.97), adjuvant therapy (HR 0.1, _95%CI:0.02-0.4) and surgery-related complications (HR 5.3, _95%CI:1.02-27.3) influenced overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Stent placement has a high success, similarly to emergency surgery, being associated with higher primary anastomosis and lower stoma rates. Tumor recurrence rate, recurrence-free survival and overall survival were comparable between groups; surgery-related complications influenced overall survival.

Feasibility of laparoscopic surgery after stent insertion for obstructive colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

A growing number of patients with obstructive colorectal cancer are being treated with self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) followed by laparoscopic resection. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of stent insertion and laparoscopic surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer and to compare these outcomes to regular laparoscopic surgery for non-obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of patients with a malignant colonic obstruction who underwent SEMS placement followed by elective laparoscopic resection. The comparison was made between stent-laparoscopy and laparoscopy alone for non-obstructive colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery was successful in 97.1% of all cases. Fifteen patients underwent an elective laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon and rectal cancer after SEMS. The mean interval from SEMS insertion to laparoscopic surgery was 21.5 days. There was no conversion to open surgery and no need for a diverting stoma. One patient (6.7%) experienced paralytic ileus. Our comparison of stent-laparoscopy to regular laparoscopy for non-obstructive colorectal cancer treatment showed comparable short-term postoperative outcomes with the exception of blood loss, which was greater in the stent-laparoscopy group.

CONCLUSION

Elective laparoscopic surgery after colonic stenting is a safe and feasible strategy for the treatment of an acute malignant colonic obstruction.

Stenting as a bridge to resection versus emergency surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer with malignant obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to discuss the safety and feasibility of a combined treatment consisting of stent insertion and elective surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer with malignant obstruction.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that discussed the safety and feasibility of stenting as a bridge to surgery in malignant colorectal cancer were identified in a search of medical databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and SCIENCE. Each paper's quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3, and statistical heterogeneity between RCTs was defined as I²>50%.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs included 594 patients were selected and analyzed. Of the included patients, 281 underwent stent insertion followed by elective surgery (SG group), and 313 underwent emergency surgery (EG group). The meta-analysis revealed that the patients in the SG group had a higher one-stage anastomosis rate. Patients in the SG had lower mortality rates and minor complications. There was no significant difference in anastomotic leakage between the two groups. The funnel plot showed that there was no publication bias in these outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Stenting as a bridge to surgery was safe and feasible in left-sided colorectal cancer with malignant obstruction. Compared with the patients in the EG group, the SG patients had an improved primary anastomosis rate and experienced no increase in the risk of other complications.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Comparison of efficacies of the self-expandable metallic stent versus transanal drainage tube and emergency surgery for malignant left-sided colon obstruction

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Patients with left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction require emergency treatment. Emergency stoma surgery has traditionally been recommended, however many stomas became permanent, decreasing patient quality of life. Recently, self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) and transanal decompression tubes (TDT) have become widely used decompression methods to avoid stoma surgery. In this study, we evaluated: 1) the efficacy of SEMS compared with TDT and emergency surgery (ES) to avoid permanent stomas; and 2) the safety and success rate of each treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 56 patients who underwent SEMS, TDT, or emergency surgery for malignant left-sided colon obstruction. We compared the permanent stoma rate of each group, and assessed whether or not each treatment was an independent risk factor for permanent stomas. We compared morbidity and mortality for each treatment group (SEMS, TDT, ES), and the success rate of the decompression procedures (SEMS and TDT).

RESULTS

The permanent stoma rates in the SEMS, TDT, and ES groups were 5.3%, 50.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. Emergency surgery (vs. SEMS) and TDT (vs. SEMS) were independent risk factors for permanent stomas, as was age ≥ 75 years. Operative morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay were not different between groups. The success rate of SEMS was significantly higher than TDT; however, two deaths, including one perforation, occurred in the former group.

CONCLUSION

SEMS seems to be effective in avoiding permanent stomas, but caution should be taken to avoid complications.

Preoperative colonic stents vs emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: Meta-analysis with systematic review of the literature

AIM

To investigate by meta-analytic study and systematic review, advantages of colonic stent placement in comparison with emergency surgery.

METHODS

We conducted an extensive literature search by PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase and the Cochrane Libraries. We searched for all the papers in English published till February 2016, by applying combinations of the following terms: Obstructive colon cancer, colon cancer in emergency, colorectal stenting, emergency surgery for colorectal cancer, guidelines for obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting vs emergency surgery in the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer, self-expanding metallic stents, stenting as bridge to surgery. The study was designed following the Prisma Statement. By our search, we identified 452 studies, and 57 potentially relevant studies in full-text were reviewed by 2 investigators; ultimately, 9 randomized controlled trials were considered for meta-analysis and all the others were considered for systematic review.

RESULTS

In the meta-analysis, by comparing colonic stenting (CS) as bridge to surgery and emergency surgery, the pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91], morbidity (OR = 2.38) or permanent stoma rate (OR = 1.67); primary anastomosis was more frequent in the stent group (OR = 0.45; P = 0.004) and stoma creation was more frequent in the emergency surgery group (OR = 2.36; P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in disease-free survival and overall survival. The pooled analysis showed a significant difference between the colonic stent and emergency surgery groups (OR = 0.37), with a significantly higher 1-year recurrence rate in the stent group (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

CS improves primary anastomosis rate with significantly high 1-year follow-up recurrence and no statistical difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival.

Deviating colostomy construction versus stent placement as bridge to surgery for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Acute colonic decompression using a deviating colostomy (DC) or a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) has been shown to lead to fewer complications and permanent stomas compared to acute resection in elderly patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO). However, no consensus exists on which decompression method is superior, especially in patients treated with curative intend. This retrospective study therefore aimed to compare both decompression methods in potentially curable LSCO patients.

METHODS

All LSCO patients treated with curative intent between 2004 and 2013 in two teaching hospitals were retrospectively identified. In one institution, a DC was the standard of care, whereas in the other all patients were treated with SEMS.

RESULTS

In total, 88 eligible LSCO patients with limited disease and curative treatment options were included; 51 patients had a SEMS placed and 37 patients a DC constructed. All patients eventually underwent a subsequent elective resection. In sum, 235 patients were excluded due to benign or inoperable disease. No significant differences were found for hospital stay, morbidity, disease-free and overall survival and mortality. Major complications were seen in 13/51 (25.5 %) patients in the SEMS group and were mostly due to stent dysfunction (n = 7). Also, one stent-related perforation occurred. Major complications occurred in 4/37 (10.8 %) patients in the DC group, including abdominal sepsis (n = 3) and wound dehiscence (n = 1). Long-term complication rate was significantly higher in the DC group (29.7 vs. 9.8 %, p = 0.01), mainly due to a high incisional hernia rate. Fewer patients had a temporary colostomy following elective resection after SEMS placement (62.2 vs. 17.6 %, p < 0.01). Permanent colostomy rate was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

SEMS and DC are both effective decompression methods for curable LSCO patients with comparable short- and long-term oncological outcomes; however, more surgical procedures are performed after DC due to an increased number of temporary colostomies and incisional hernia repairs.

Stenting as a Bridge to Surgery for Obstructive Colon Cancer: Does It Have Surgical Merit or Oncologic Demerit?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement with elective curative surgery.

METHODS

Data from patients admitted with obstructing colon cancer between 2000 and 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients underwent either SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery (stent group, n = 67) or emergency surgery (surgery group, n = 35). Surgical and oncologic outcomes of the groups were compared.

RESULTS

Placement of SEMS was technically successful in 98.5% and clinically successful in 89.6% of cases. There were eight (11.9%) stent-related complications, including three migrations (4.5%), four occlusions (6.0%), and one perforation (1.5%). The stent group had a higher laparoscopic resection rate (67.2 vs. 31.4%, p = 0.001) with a lower conversion rate (4.3 vs. 35.3%, p = 0.003). The wound infection rate was significantly higher in the surgery group (37.1 vs. 11.9%, p = 0.003) with no differences in the rate of other complications. The rates of local recurrence and distant metastasis, recurrence-free, and overall survival were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting and elective surgery was associated with a higher laparoscopy rate, a lower conversion rate, and a lower wound infection rate compared to emergency surgery but did not affect recurrence or survival.

Oncological outcome of malignant colonic obstruction in the Dutch Stent-In 2 trial

BACKGROUND

The Stent-In 2 trial randomized patients with malignant colonic obstruction to emergency surgery or stent placement as a bridge to elective surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Disease recurrence, and disease-free, disease-specific and overall survival were evaluated, including a subgroup analysis of patients with a stent- or guidewire-related perforation.

RESULTS

Of 98 patients included in the original Stent-In 2 trial, patients with benign (16) or incurable (23) disease were excluded from this study, along with a patient who had withdrawn from the trial. Of the remaining 58 patients, 32 were randomized to emergency surgery (31 resection, 1 stoma only) and 26 to stenting. Unsuccessful stenting required emergency surgery in six patients owing to wire or stent perforation. Locoregional or distant disease recurrence developed in nine of 32 patients in the emergency surgery group and 13 of 26 in the stent group. Disease-free survival was worse in the subgroup with stent- or guidewire-related perforation. Five of six patients in this subgroup developed a recurrence, compared with nine of 32 in the emergency surgery group and eight of 20 who had unperforated stenting.

CONCLUSION

Stent placement for malignant colonic obstruction was associated with a risk of recurrence in this trial, but the numbers are small. There is not enough evidence to refute the approach strongly.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN46462267 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Bridge-to-surgery stent placement versus emergency surgery for acute malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to surgery is an option for acute malignant colonic obstruction. There is ongoing debate regarding the superiority and oncological safety of SEMS placement compared with emergency surgery. This retrospective study aimed to compare outcomes of these treatment approaches.

METHODS

Patients were identified from cohorts treated between 2005 and 2012 in two teaching hospitals, of which one used emergency surgery only in patients with large bowel obstruction, whereas the other attempted SEMS placement. Only patients treated with curative intent were included.

RESULTS

The study included 59 patients in whom SEMS placement was attempted and 51 who underwent surgery alone. The successful primary anastomosis rate was higher in the SEMS group than in the surgery-alone group among patients with left-sided obstruction (30 of 43 versus 10 of 34 respectively; P = 0.001), whereas stoma formation was less common (11 of 43 versus 23 of 34; P < 0.001). Such differences were not apparent in patients with right-sided obstruction. Secondary stoma rates were comparable between treatment approaches (left-sided: 11 of 43 versus 13 of 34, P = 0.322; right-sided: 1 of 16 versus 1 of 17, P = 1.000). There were no significant differences in morbidity, mortality, recurrence or survival.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic SEMS placement increased the primary anastomosis rate in patients with left-sided large bowel obstruction.