Self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery in the treatment of left colon cancer obstruction: Cost-benefit analysis and oncologic results

Beyond Obstruction: Evaluating Self-Expandable Metallic Stents (SEMSs) vs. Emergency Surgery for Challenging pT4 Obstructive Colon Cancer: Multicentre Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Colon cancer presents as an obstruction in almost 30% of patients. Self-expandable metallic stents emerged as an alternative to emergency surgery, despite early controversies around their use. Improved techniques led to stent incorporation in clinical guidelines. Our objective is to compare colectomies performed after the insertion of self-expandable metallic stents versus emergency surgeries in pT4 obstructive left colon cancer, analysing postoperative and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

This is an observational retrospective multicentre study involving 50 hospitals and analysing data from patients with pT4 obstructive tumours treated for curative intent between 2015 and 2017. Patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer were included, with exclusion criteria being palliative surgery or incomplete resection. Primary outcomes were local, peritoneal, and systemic recurrence rates, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications and the rate of surgeries without major complications.

RESULTS

In total, 196 patients were analysed, 128 undergoing emergency surgery and 68 receiving colonic stents. Stents more frequently allowed for minimally invasive surgeries: 33.8% vs. 4.7% (p < 0.01). The stent group showed fewer major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) at 4.5% vs. 22.4% (p < 0.01), fewer infectious complications at 13.2% vs. 23.1% (p = 0.1), and fewer organ-space infections at 3.3% vs. 15.9% (p = 0.03). No significant differences in recurrence rates, 29.4% vs. 28.1% (p = 0.8); disease-free survival, 44.5 vs. 44.3 months (p = 0.5); or overall survival, 50.5 vs. 47.6 months (p = 0.4), were found between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-expandable metallic stents are a safe alternative for pT4 obstructive left colon cancer, improving postoperative outcomes without compromising short- and medium-term oncological results. Consideration of experienced clinicians and potential referral to centres with advanced stenting capabilities may enhance patient care.

Effect of self-expandable metal stent on morbidity and mortality and oncological prognosis in malignant colonic obstruction: retrospective analysis of its use as curative and palliative treatment

INTRODUCTION

Acute gastrointestinal obstruction due to colorectal cancer occurs in 7-30% of cases and is an abdominal emergency that requires urgent decompression. The safety and oncological effect of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in these patients remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate its impact on these variables and compare it with that of emergency surgery (ES).

METHODS

Descriptive, retrospective and single-centre study, performed between 2008 and 2015, with follow-up until 2017. One hundred eleven patients with diagnosis of left malignant colonic obstruction were included and divided according to the treatment received: stent as bridge to surgery (SBTS group: 39), palliative stent (PS group: 30) and emergency surgery with curative (ECS group: 34) or palliative intent (EPS group: 8). Treatment was decided by the attending surgeon in charge.

RESULTS

Technical and clinical general success rates for colorectal SEMS were 95.7% and 91.3%, respectively, with an associated morbimortality of 23.2%, which was higher in the PS group (p = 0.002). The SBTS group presented a higher laparoscopic approach and primary anastomosis (p < 0.001), as well as a lower colostomy rate than the ECS group (12.8% vs. 40%; p = 0.023). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were significantly lower in the SBTS group compared to the ECS group (41% vs. 67.6%; p = 0.025). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were similar between the analysed groups.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stent placement is a safe and effective therapeutic alternative to emergency surgery in the management of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in both curative and palliative fields. It presents a lower postoperative morbimortality and a similar oncological prognosis.

Controversies of colonic stenting in obstructive left colorectal cancer: a critical analysis with meta-analysis and meta-regression

PURPOSE

After almost three decades since the first description of colonic stents, the controversies of its safe application continue to impede the readiness of adoption by clinicians for malignant left bowel obstruction. This review seeks to address some of the controversial aspects of stenting and its impact on surgical and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and CNKI were searched for articles employing SEMS for left colonic obstruction. Outcomes analyzed include success rates, complications, and long-term survival. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

36 studies were included with 2002 patients across seven randomized controlled trials and 29 observational studies. High technical (92%) and clinical (82%) success rates, and low rates of complications, including perforation (5%), were found. Those with > 8% perforation rates had poorer technical success rates than those with ≤ 8%, but there were no significant differences in 90-day in-hospital mortality and three and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. A significant increase was found in technical (RR = 1.094; CI, 1.041-1.149; p < 0.001) and clinical (RR = 1.158; CI, 1.064-1.259; p = 0.001) success rates when the duration between stenting and surgery was ≥ 2 weeks compared to < 2 weeks, but there were no significant differences in perforation rates, 90-day in-hospital mortality, and long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stenting is safe and effective with high success rates and low complication rates. However, outcomes of higher perforation rates and optimal timing from stent till surgery remain unclear, with only a few studies reporting on these outcomes, leaving areas for future research.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction. This study investigated the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of several treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction.

Methods

We searched for articles published in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2020. We screened out the literature comparing different treatment strategies. Evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of different treatment strategies. The network meta-analysis summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and its 95% confidence interval.

Results

The network meta-analysis involved 48 articles, including 8 (randomized controlled trials) RCTs and 40 non-RCTs. Primary outcomes: the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the CS-BTS strategy and the DS-BTS strategy were significantly better than those of the ES strategy, and the 5-year OS of the DS-BTS strategy was significantly better than that of CS-BTS. The long-term survival of TCT-BTS was not significantly different from those of CS-BTS and ES. Secondary outcomes: compared with emergency resection (ER) strategies, colonic stent-bridge to surgery (CS-BTS) and transanal colorectal tube-bridge to surgery (TCT-BTS) strategies can significantly increase the primary anastomosis rate, CS-BTS and decompressing stoma-bridge to surgery (DS-BTS) strategies can significantly reduce mortality, and CS-BTS strategies can significantly reduce the permanent stoma rate. The hospital stay of DS-BTS is significantly longer than that of other strategies. There was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage levels of several treatment strategies.

Conclusion

Comprehensive literature research, we find that CS-BTS and DS-BTS strategies can bring better 5-year OS and DFS than ER. DS-BTS strategies have a better 5-year OS than CS-BTS strategies. Without considering the hospital stays, DS-BTS strategy is the best choice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00355-2.

Current Status of the Self-Expandable Metal Stent as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: Results from an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Background: The current use of endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery is not always accepted in standard clinical practice to treat neoplastic colonic obstructions. Objectives: The role of colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) positioning as a bridge to resective surgery versus emergency surgery (ES) for malignant obstruction, using all new data and available variables, was studied and we focused on short- and long-term results. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were included. The search comprised only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the interventions that included SEMS positioning versus ES. The primary outcomes were the rates of overall postoperative mortality, clinical and technical success. The secondary outcomes were the short- and long-term results. Results: A total of 12 studies were eligible for further analyses. A laparoscopic colectomy was the most common operation performed in the SEMS group, whereas the traditional open approach was commonly used in the ES group. Intraoperative colonic lavage was seldomly performed during ES. There were no differences in mortality rates between the two groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.04; I2 = 0%). In the SEMS group, the rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher in of SEMS (69.75%) than in the ES (55.07%) (RR 1.26, 95% 245 CI 1.01 to 1.57; I2 = 86%). Conversely, the upfront Hartmann procedure was performed more frequently in the ES (39.1%) as compared to the SEMS group (23.4%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85; I2 = 23%). The overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the SEMS group (32.74%) than in the ES group (48.25%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 65%). Conclusions: In the presence of malignant colorectal obstruction, SEMS is safe and associated with the same mortality and significantly lower morbidity than the ES group. The rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher than the ES group. Nevertheless, recurrence and survival outcomes are not significantly different between the two groups. The analysis of short- and long-term results can suggest the use of SEMS as a bridge to resective surgery when it is performed by an endoscopist with adequate expertise in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performed commonly colonic stenting.

Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials

Self-expanding metallic stent placement as a bridge to surgery has been reported as an alternative to emergency surgery for acute malignant colorectal obstruction. However, results from clinical trials and previous meta-analyses are conflicting. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between emergency surgery and self-expanding metallic stents for malignant large bowel obstruction. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for prospective and randomised controlled trials. The outcomes of focus included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival, overall tumour recurrence, overall complication and 30-day mortality rate, length of hospital and ICU stay, overall blood loss, number of patients requiring transfusion, total number of lymph nodes harvested, stoma and primary anastomosis rate. Twenty-seven studies were included with a total of 3894 patients. There was no significant difference in terms of 3-year and 5-year disease-free and overall survival. Stenting resulted in less blood loss (mean difference -234.72, P < 0.00001) and higher primary anastomosis rate (RR 1.25, P < 0.00001). For curative cases, bridge to surgery groups had lower 30-day mortality rate (RR 0.65, P = 0.01), lower overall complication rate (RR 0.65, P < 0.0001), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference 2.51, P = 0.005), shorter ICU stay (mean difference -2.27, P = 0.02) and hospital stay (mean difference -7.24, 95% P < 0.0001). Compared to emergency surgery, self-expanding metallic stent interventions improve short-term surgical outcomes, especially in the curative setting, but have similar long-term oncological and survival outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of stent-related perforation in malignant colon obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The placement of self-expandable metallic stents as a bridge to surgery in malignant colon obstruction is concerning due to the long-term oncological results reported in recent published studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological consequences of stent-related perforations in patients with malignant colon obstruction and potentially curable disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid and ISRCTN Registry were searched, with no restrictions. We performed five meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effect sizes by using a random-effect model. The outcomes were global, locoregional and systemic recurrence rate and 3 and 5 year-survival rate depending on the presence or absence of stent-related perforation.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (950 patients) were included. The overall rate of stent-related perforation was 8.9%. The global recurrence rate was significantly higher in stent-related perforation group (41.2 vs. 30.8%; OR 1.70; 95%CI: 1.02-2.84; p = 0.04). Locoregional recurrence rate was higher in the perforated group than in the non-perforated group (26.6 vs. 12.5%), with statistically significant differences (OR 2.41; 95% CI:1.33-4.34; p = 0.004). No significant differences were found in systemic recurrence rate (13.6 vs. 20.5%; OR 0.77; 95%CI: 0.35-1.7; p = 0.51); 3-year overall survival rate (65.4 vs. 74.8%; OR 0.63; 95% CI:0.29-1.39; p = 0.25) and 5-year overall survival rate (48.3 vs. 58.6%; OR 0.67; 95%CI: 0.27-1.65; p = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Stent-related perforation is associated with an increased risk of global and locoregional recurrence. The successful placement of the stent as a bridge to surgery in the curative purpose of patients with obstructed colon cancer does not exclude the presence of underlying perforation, with the consequent danger of disease spread. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020152817.

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.

Colonic stents for malignant bowel obstruction: current status and future prospects

Introduction: Although more than two decades are already passed from the first description of this technique, the debate remains open on the role of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement in the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). According to most recent data, SEMS placement is considered a safe and effective alternative treatment as a bridge to surgery(BTS). In addition, stent placement should be considered as primary option for palliative treatment of obstructing cancer.Areas covered: Current status, indication, technique, oncological outcomes, advantages, and risks of SEMS placement in MBO were reviewed.Expert commentary: The placement of colonic SEMS for palliation and for BTS in patients with MBO has been increasingly reported and it seems to have several advantages over emergency surgery. Substantial concerns of tumor seeding following SEMS placement, especially in case of perforation, have been raised in numerous studies. Actually, no significant differences are reported in oncologic long-term survival between patients undergoing stent placement as a BTS and those undergoing emergency surgery. Considering all the mentioned factors, indication for colorectal stenting should be evaluated only in highly specialized centers, in the context of multidisciplinary approach where risks and benefits of stenting are carefully weighed, especially in the BTS setting.

Stent performance in obstructive left colon cancer. Unicentric and cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and clinical and oncological results of colonic stents in the initial therapeutic strategy of obstructive left colon cancer.

METHODS

Descriptive and ambispective study (2008-2018) of patients with clinical and radiological diagnosis of neoplastic obstruction of the left colon in whom a colonic stent was indicated, analyzing the following groups: palliative stent, stent as bridge to surgery and urgent surgery in case of stent failure or complications.

RESULTS

The study included 208 patients. The technical and clinical success rates were 82.2% and 74.5%, respectively, with associated perforation in 4.3% of the sample. In 32.2%, the stent was placed as bridge to surgery, while 28.4% required urgent surgical intervention. The stent was placed with palliative intent in 39.4%. The proportion of laparoscopic surgery, oncological resection, primary anastomosis and lymph nodes resected were higher in patients undergoing elective surgery than in urgent surgery, with shorter postoperative stay and less severe postoperative morbidity and mortality. Stage II-III patients with oncological tumor resection who underwent elective surgery had increased survival compared to those who underwent urgent surgery (P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial treatment of neoplastic obstruction of the left colon with a stent is an effective strategy in elective surgery and avoids permanent colostomy in palliative patients, although complications or stent failure lead to urgent surgery in almost one-third of patients.

Acute abdominal obstruction: Colon stent or emergency surgery? An evidence-based review

According to the American Cancer Society and Colorectal Cancer Statistics 2017, colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death in the world in 2018. Previous studies demonstrated that 8%-29% of patients with primary CRC present malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). In the past, emergency surgery has been the primary treatment for MCO, although morbidity and surgical mortality rates are higher in these settings than in elective procedures. In the 1990s, self-expanding metal stents appeared and was a watershed in the treatment of patients in gastrointestinal surgical emergencies. The studies led to high expectations because the use of stents could prevent surgical intervention, such as colostomy, leading to lower morbidity and mortality, possibly resulting in higher quality of life. This review was designed to provide present evidence of the indication, technique, outcomes, benefits, and risks of these treatments in acute MCO through the analysis of previously published studies and current guidelines.

Impact on surgical and oncological results of the use of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery for potentially curable occlusive colorectal neoplasms

INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of patients treated with colonic stents as a bridge to surgery (BTS) have recently been questioned in terms of safety and long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects on surgical and oncologic outcomes of colonic stents as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients operated on for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer with or without distant disease between September 2002 and October 2015, comparing the patients treated with a colonic stent as a BTS (Stent group) with those directly operated on (Surgery group).

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent urgent surgery, while stent placement as a BTS was attempted in 57 patients. The Stent group had more patients treated with a laparoscopic approach (64.9 vs. 5%, P<.001), higher primary anastomosis rate (91.2 vs. 55%, P=.001), less need for stomata (10.5 vs. 50%, P=.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (7 vs. 12 days, P=.014). Thirty-day morbidity was reduced in the Stent group, although not significantly (29.8 vs. 50%, P=.104). However, 30-day mortality was significantly lower (1.8 vs. 20%, P=.015). Regarding the long-term oncologic outcomes, no significant differences were found when comparing overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival or progression-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stenting as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer seems to offer better surgical and equal long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to those of patients directly operated on.

Ten-year survival after endoscopic stent placement as a bridge to surgery in obstructing colon cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expandable metal stents are used increasingly in the treatment of obstructing colorectal cancer (CRC). Although endoscopic colon stenting is widely accepted in palliation, disagreement exists about its role in a curative setting. This study aims to describe long-term survival data in a large patient group treated with colon stenting as a bridge to surgery for CRC.

METHODS

This prospective study included 97 patients who presented in a Belgian hospital between 1998 and 2013 with obstructing, although potentially curable, CRC. All patients underwent endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery. Procedure-related adverse events and long-term follow-up data were retrospectively collected and compared with the CRC mortality in Belgium in the same time span.

RESULTS

Overall survival in this observational cohort did not differ significantly from survival in all Belgian patients with CRC in the same period (P = .14). One-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival rates were similar in both groups (95.9% vs 79.0%; 54.7% vs 51.2%; 41.0% vs 35.6%, respectively). The technical success rate was 94.8%. Seventy-three patients did not experience any adverse event. Stent migration occurred in 9 patients, whereas micro-perforations and macro-perforations were observed in 14 patients, without influence on survival. Incidence rates of peritoneal metastases did not differ between patients with and without any type of perforation (22.2% vs 15.2%, respectively; P = .47). The type of stent influenced the overall adverse event risk, mainly driven by a significant increase in stent migration in case of Wallstent enteral (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Mass).

CONCLUSIONS

Colon stenting before surgery is effective and did not worsen the survival outcome in patients with obstructing CRC who were treated with curative intent, which affirms the role for stenting as a bridge to surgery.