Response

Obstructing Left-Sided Colonic Cancer: Is Endoscopic Stenting a Bridge to Surgery or a Bridge to Nowhere?

For the 8-29% colorectal cancers that initially manifest with obstruction, emergency surgery (ES) was traditionally considered the only available therapy, despite high morbidity and mortality rates and the need for colostomy creation. More recently, malignant obstruction of the left colon can be temporized by endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS), used as bridge to surgery (BTS), facilitating a laparoscopic approach and increasing the likelihood that a primary anastomosis instead of stoma would be used. Despite these attractive outcomes, the superiority of the BTS approach is not clearly established. Few authors have stressed the potential cancer risk associated with perforations that may occur during endoscopic stent placement, facilitating neoplastic spread and negatively impacting prognosis. For this reason, the current literature focuses on long-term oncologic outcomes such as disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrence rate that do seem not to differ between the ES and BTS approaches. This lack of consensus has spawned differing and sometimes discordant guidelines worldwide. In conclusion, 20 years after the first description of a colonic stent as BTS, the debate is still open, but the growing number of articles about the use of SEMS as a BTS signifies a great interest in the topic. We hope that these data will finally converge on a single set of recommendations supporting a management strategy with well-demonstrated superiority.

Long-term survival analysis after endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: comparison with emergency diverting colostomy

OBJECTIVE

The use of colorectal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) as bridge therapy for malignant colorectal obstruction was first reported more than 20 years ago. However, its use remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare the long-term survival of patients with potentially resectable malignant colorectal obstruction who had undergone colorectal SEMS placement and emergency surgery.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analyses. Patients who received treatment between 2009 and 2017 were included. According to the eligibility criteria, 21 patients were included in the SEMS group and 67 patients were included in the surgical group..

RESULTS

The majority of the patients in the SEMS group were female (57.1%), whereas the majority of those in the surgical group were male (53.7%). The median follow-up time was 60 months for both groups with the same interquartile range of 60 months. There was no difference in the overall survival rate (log rank p=0.873) and disease-free survival rate (log rank p=0.2821) in the five-year analysis. There was no difference in local recurrence rates (38.1% vs. 22.4%, p=0.14) or distant recurrence rates (33.3% vs. 50.7%, p=0.16) in the SEMS and the surgical groups. Technical and clinical success rates of endoscopic stenting were 95.3% and 85.7%, respectively. There were no immediate adverse events (AEs). Severe AEs included perforation (14.3%), silent perforation (4.7%), reobstruction (14.3%), and bleeding (14.3%). Mild AEs included pain (42.8%), tenesmus (9.5%), and incontinence (4.76%). The limitations of this study was retrospective and was conducted at a single center.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in disease-free and overall survival rates were observed in the five-year analysis of patients with resectable colorectal cancer who had undergone SEMS placement or colostomy for the treatment of malignant colorectal obstruction. Patients in the SEMS group had a higher rate of primary anastomosis and a lower rate of temporary colostomy than did those in the surgery group.