Antireflux stent versus conventional stent in the palliation of distal esophageal cancer. A randomized, multicenter clinical trial

Anti-reflux versus conventional self-expanding metal stents in the palliation of esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an effective palliative endoscopic therapy to reduce dysphagia in esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a relatively common complaint after non-valved conventional SEMS placement. Therefore, valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-V) were designed to reduce the rate of GERD symptoms. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two stents. Material and methods  This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including only randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the outcomes between SEMS-V and non-valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-NV) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were analyzed with Review Manager Software. Quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. Results  Ten randomized clinical trials including a total of 467 patients, 234 in the SEMS-V group and 233 in the SEMS-NV group, were included. There were no statistically significant differences regarding GERD qualitative analysis (RD -0.17; 95 % CI -0.67, 0.33; P  = 0.5) and quantitative analysis (SMD -0.22; 95 % CI -0.53, 0.08; P  = 0.15) technical success (RD -0.03; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.01; P  = 0.16), dysphagia improvement (RD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.19, 0.06; P  = 0.30), and adverse events (RD 0.07; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.20; P  = 0.32). Conclusions  Both SEMS-V and SEMS-NV are safe and effective in the palliation of esophageal cancer with similar rates of GERD, dysphagia relief, technical success, adverse events, stent migration, stent obstruction, bleeding, and improvement of the quality of life.

Interventional Endoscopy for Palliation of Luminal Gastrointestinal Obstructions in Management of Cancer: Practical Guide for Oncologists

Self-expanding metal stents placed during endoscopy are increasingly the first-line treatment for luminal obstruction caused by esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colorectal malignancies in patients who are not candidates for definitive surgical resection. In this review, we provide a practical guide for clinicians to optimise patient and procedure selection for endoscopic stenting in malignant gastrointestinal obstructions. The role of endoscopic stenting in each of the major anatomical systems (esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colorectal) is presented with regard to pre-procedural patient evaluation, procedural techniques, clinical outcomes, and potential complications, as well as post-procedure aftercare.

A phase III, multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial on the performance of a novel esophageal stent with an antireflux valve (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) when deployed across the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) can lead to reflux with risks of aspiration. A SEMS with a tricuspid antireflux valve (SEMS-V) was designed to address this issue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this stent.

METHODS

A phase III, multicenter, prospective, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial was conducted on patients with malignant dysphagia requiring SEMSs to be placed across the GEJ. Patients were randomized to receive SEMSs with no valve (SEMS-NV) or SEMS-V. Postdeployment dysphagia score at 2 weeks and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire score at 4 weeks were measured. Patients were followed for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were randomized (SEMS-NV: 30 patients, mean age 67 ± 13 years; SEMS-V: 30 patients, mean age 65 ± 12 years). Baseline dysphagia scores (SEMS-NV, 2.5 ± .8; SEMS-V, 2.5 ± .8) and GERD-HRQL scores (SEMS-NV, 11.1 ± 8.2; SEMS-V, 12.8 ± 8.3) were similar. All SEMSs were successfully deployed. A similar proportion of patients in both arms improved from advanced dysphagia to moderate to no dysphagia (SEMS-NV, 71%; SEMS-V, 74%; 95% confidence interval, 1.93 [-17.8 to 21.7]). The dysphagia scores were also similar across all follow-up time points. Mean GERD-HRQL scores improved by 7.4 ± 10.2 points in the SEMS-V arm and by 5.2 ± 8.3 in the SEMS-NV group (P = .96). The GERD-HRQL scores were similar across all follow-up time points. Aspiration pneumonia occurred in 3.3% in the SEMS-NV arm and 6.9% in the SEMS-V arm (P = .61). Migration rates were similar (SEMS-NV, 33%; SEMS-V, 48%; P = .29). Two SEMS-V spontaneously fractured. There was no perforation, food impaction, or stent-related death in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEMS-V was equally effective in relieving dysphagia as compared with the SEMS-NV. Presence of the valve did not increase the risks of adverse events. GERD symptom scores were similar between the 2 stents, implying either that the valve was not effective or that all patients on proton pump inhibitors could have masked the symptoms of GERD. Studies with objective evaluations such as fluoroscopy and/or pH/impedance are recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02159898.).

Efficacy and safety of standard and anti-reflux self-expanding metal stent: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metal stents are the main palliative treatment modality for unresectable esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux is a common adverse outcome after placement of esophageal stent for cancer involving the gastroesophageal junction and the gastric cardia. Anti-reflux stents with valve have been designed to prevent the acid reflux. The superiority of anti-reflux stent over standard stent in preventing gastroesophageal reflux has not been established well. This study compares the anti-reflux stent and the standard stent in terms of their efficacy to prevent acid reflux.

AIM

To compare the standard and the anti-reflux stents in terms of their efficacy, safety, and complications.

METHODS

The meta-analysis included 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare pooled outcomes of total 395 patients. Primary outcomes include improvement in reflux symptoms and dysphagia score. Secondary outcomes include complications of stent migration, occlusion, and bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard stent, the anti-reflux stent showed a trend towards reduction in the dysphagia score without reaching a statistical significance [Standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.33 (-0.71, 0.05); P = 0.09, I²: 37%]. There was no statistical difference in the gastrointestinal reflux (GER) scores between the two types of stents [SMD: -0.17 (-0.78, 0.45); P = 0.008, I²: 74%]. Compared to standard stent, anti-reflux stent showed no difference in the risk of stent migration [OR: 1.37 (0.66, 2.83); P = 0.40, I²: 0 %], bleeding [OR: 1.43 (0.40, 5.13); P = 0.59, I²: 0 %], and obstruction [OR: 1.66 (0.60, 4.60); P = 0.33, I²: 0 %].

CONCLUSION

Traditional self-expanding standard esophageal stent and anti-reflux stent with valve are similar in terms of outcomes and complications.

Treatment for unresectable or metastatic oesophageal cancer: current evidence and trends

Approximately half of the patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer present with unresectable or metastatic disease. Treatment for these patients aims to control dysphagia and other cancer-related symptoms, improve quality of life and prolong survival. In the past 25 years, modestly improved outcomes have been achieved in the treatment of patients with inoperable non-metastatic cancer who are medically not fit for surgery or have unresectable, locally advanced disease. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy offers the best outcomes in these patients. In distant metastatic oesophageal cancer, several double-agent or triple-agent chemotherapy regimens have been established as first-line treatment options. In addition, long-term results of multiple large randomized phase III trials using additional targeted therapies have been published in the past few years, affecting contemporary clinical practice and future research directions. For the local treatment of malignant dysphagia, various treatment options have emerged, and self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is currently the most widely applied method. Besides the continuous search for improved SEMS designs to minimize the risk of associated complications, efforts have been made to develop and evaluate the efficacy of antireflux stents and irradiation stents. This Review outlines the current evidence and ongoing trends in the different modern-day, multidisciplinary interventions for patients with unresectable or metastatic oesophageal cancer with an emphasis on key randomized trials.

Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Placement for the Palliation of Esophageal Cancer

Esophageal stents have been used to palliate patients with dysphagia caused by esophageal cancer. Early rigid plastic prostheses have been associated with a high risk of complications. However, with the development of self-expanding stents, it has developed into a widely accepted method for treating malignant esophageal strictures and esophagorespiratory fistulas (ERFs). The present review covers various aspects of self-expanding metallic stent placement for palliating esophageal cancer, including its types, placement procedures, indications, contraindications, complications, and some of innovations that will become available in the future.

Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review

Objectives

Assess (i) the quality of reporting and handling of missing data (MD) in palliative care trials, (ii) whether there are differences in the reporting of criteria specified by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement compared with those not specified, and (iii) the association of the reporting of MD with journal impact factor and CONSORT endorsement status.

Study Design and Setting

Systematic review of palliative care randomized controlled trials. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (2009–2014) were searched.

Results

One hundred and eight trials (15,560 participants) were included. MD was incompletely reported and not handled in accordance with current guidance. Reporting criteria specified by the CONSORT statement were better reported than those not specified (participant flow, 69%; number of participants not included in the primary outcome analysis, 94%; and the reason for MD, 71%). However, MD in items contributing to scale summaries (10%) and secondary outcomes (9%) were poorly reported, so the proportion of MD stated is likely to be an underestimate. The reason for MD provided was unclear for 54% of participants and only 16% of trials with MD reported a MD sensitivity analysis. The odds of reporting most of the MD and other risk of bias reporting criteria were increased as the journal impact factor increased and in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement.

Conclusion

Further development of the CONSORT MD reporting guidance is likely to improve the quality of reporting. Reporting recommendations are provided.

Volume-outcome relation in palliative systemic treatment of metastatic oesophagogastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Palliative systemic therapy has been shown to improve survival in metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Administration of palliative systemic therapy in metastatic oesophagogastric cancer varies between hospitals. We aimed to explore the association between the annual hospital volume of oesophagogastric cancer patients and survival.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed in the Netherlands between 2005 and 2013 with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were attributed according to three definitions of high volume: (1) high-volume incidence centre, (2) high-volume treatment centre and (3) high-volume surgical centre. Independent predictors for administration of palliative chemotherapy were evaluated by means of multivariable logistic regression analysis, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of high-volume centres on survival.

RESULTS

Our data set comprised 4078 patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer, and 5425 patients with metastatic gastric cancer, with a median overall survival of 20 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-21 weeks) and 16 weeks (95% CI 15-17 weeks), respectively. Patients with oesophageal cancer treated in a high-volume surgical centre (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91) and a high-volume treatment centre (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.99) exhibited a decreased risk of death. For gastric cancer, patients treated in a high-volume surgical centre (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.92) had a superior outcome.

CONCLUSION

Improved survival in patients undergoing palliative systemic therapy for oesophagogastric cancer was associated with treatment in high-volume treatment and surgical centres. Further research should be implemented to explore which specific factors of high-volume centres are associated with improved outcomes.

Fully covered stents are similar to semi-covered stents with regard to migration in palliative treatment of malignant strictures of the esophagus and gastric cardia: results of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Stent migration is a significant clinical problem in palliation of malignant strictures in the esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ). We have compared a newer design of a fully-covered stent to a widely used semi-covered stent using migration >20 mm as the primary outcome variable. Effects on dysphagia, quality of life (QoL) and re-intervention frequency were also investigated.

Methods

Patients with dysphagia due to non-curable esophagus/GEJ cancer were randomized to receive either a more recent design of a fully-covered stent (n = 48) or a conventional semi-covered stent (n = 47). Chest x-ray, dysphagia and QoL were studied at baseline, one week, four weeks and three months thereafter.

Results

There were no significant differences either in stent migration distance or in the migration frequency. Stent migration during the total study period occurred in 37.2 % in the semi-covered group compared to 20.0 % for the fully-covered group. Dysphagia was measured with Watson and Ogilvie scores and with the dysphagia module in the QoL scale (QLQ-OG25). On average, there was a tendency to better dysphagia relief for the fully-covered design as scored with the two latter dysphagia instruments (p= 0.081 and p= 0.067) at three months and towards more re-interventions in the semi-covered group (p= 0.083).

Conclusion

In spite of its somewhat lower intrinsic radial force, the fully-covered stent was comparable to the conventional semi-covered stent with regard to stent migration. The data further suggest a potential benefit of the fully-covered stent in improving dysphagia in patients with longer life expectancy.

Novel stent in the palliation of malignant esophageal strictures: a retrospective study

The placement of metal stents is often used as a palliative treatment for malignant esophageal stenosis. We designed a novel stent that has been used clinically since 2011, and we therefore performed a retrospective study to compare the therapeutic effects of this novel metal stent to a conventional partially covered metal stent in patients with malignant esophageal strictures. The records of 201 consecutive patients who underwent placement of either the conventional partially covered metal stents (Group A, n = 92) or the new metal stents (Group B, n = 109) in the Endoscopy Center of General Hospital of Chengdu Military Command from October 2008 to March 2013 were reviewed. The median dysphagia score significantly improved in both groups 1 week following stent placement (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in success rate (P = 0.910) or the complication rate (P = 0.426) between groups. Six months after stent placement, recurrent dysphagia due to stent migration, tissue ingrowth or overgrowth or food obstruction occurred in 45% and 29% of patients in the conventional stent and new stent groups, respectively. The results of this retrospective study indicate that the new modified self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) is at least as safe and effective as the conventional partially covered SEMS in treatment of malignant esophageal strictures.

Antireflux versus conventional self-expanding metallic Stents (SEMS) for distal esophageal cancer: results of a multicenter randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are commonly used in the palliation of dysphagia in patients with inoperable esophageal carcinoma. However, they predispose to gastroesophageal reflux when deployed across the gastroesophageal junction. The aims of this study were to: 1) assess the influence of the antireflux valve on trans-prosthetic reflux (primary outcome); and 2) compare the results of SEMS with and without antireflux valve in terms of reflux symptoms, quality of life (QOL), improvement of dysphagia and adverse events (secondary outcomes).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients were enrolled in nine centers. Carcinomas were locally advanced (47 %) or metastatic. After randomization, patients received either a covered SEMS with antireflux valve (n = 20) or a similar type of SEMS with no antireflux device but assigned to standard proton pump inhibitor therapy and postural advice (n = 18). Trans-prosthetic reflux was assessed at day 2 using a radiological score based on barium esophagography performed after Trendelenburg maneuver and graded from 0 (no reflux) to 12 (maximum). Monthly telephone interviews were conducted for Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) scoring from 0 (excellent) to 5 (poor), QOL assessment (based on the Reflux-Qual Simplifié scoring system) from 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent), dysphagia scoring from 0 (no dysphagia) to 5 (complete dysphagia) and regurgitation scoring from 0 (no regurgitation) to 16 (maximum).

RESULTS

No difference was noted in terms of age, sex, size of lesion, prosthesis length or need for dilation prior to SEMS placement. No difficulty in placing SEMS nor complications were noted. Radiological scores of reflux were found to be significantly lower in patients with an antireflux stent compared to the conventional stent and associated measures. The regurgitation scores were significantly decreased in patients with antireflux stents during the first 2 months after stent placement and thereafter, they were similar in the two groups. QOL and dysphagia were improved in both groups. Survival rates were comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was observed between the two types of SEMS regarding the palliation of dysphagia and improvement of QOL. However, SEMS with an antireflux valve were more effective in preventing trans-prosthetic gastroesophageal reflux but at the cost of an increased likehood of minor adverse events (migrations and/or obstruction of the SEMS).

Esophageal stents for the treatment of malignant dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are the current standard for relief of malignant esophageal dysphagia. Self-expanding plastic stents (SEPS) are also used for relief of malignant esophageal dysphagia and as neoadjuvant therapy due to their relative ease of removability. The innovations in design of both SEMS and SEPS have made their use more prevalent in patients with malignant dysphagia. We review the current literature on esophageal stents, including general concepts, indications, contraindications, SEMS and SEPS models, complications and their management, implications of tumor location, cost-effectiveness of stents in comparison with other modalities, and quality of life after stent placement.

Gastrointestinal stenting: Current status and imaging features

The use of stents in the gastrointestinal tract has been subjected to major changes. Initially, the use of stents was restricted to malignant strictures in patients with metastatic disease. But thanks to reduction of the morbidity and mortality rates, they are now used with curative intention and in patients with benign diseases after careful selection. However, for patients presenting with colon obstruction due to an advanced colon carcinoma, the mortality and morbidity are still high. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of indications, techniques and further developments of the stents in the gastrointestinal tract and to highlight the predominant role of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) in the detection of potential complications.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-related Symptom Assessment in Subjects with Malignant Dysphagia Receiving Esophageal Stents

Concerns remain over the ability to stent across of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) for esophageal adenocarcinoma and the effects of gastroesophageal (GE) reflux. Thus, the aim of this study was to demonstrate minimal quality-of-life (QOL) side effects in patients undergoing esophageal stenting across the LES. An Institutional Review Board–approved prospective clinical trial evaluated the results of the Gastrointestinal Symptom questionnaire that includes a validated GE reflux disease (GERD) assessment (GERD-HRQL) and a dysphagia assessment. Consecutive patients were enrolled in this clinical trial, with 81 per cent male, 19 per cent female, median age of 62 years, with adenocarcinoma of the GE junction as their diagnosis. The median dysphagia score was 3 (only liquids can be tolerated) prestent and was improved to a median score of 0 (ability to eat all foods) poststent ( P = 0.01). The median GERD score was 0 (none) prestent and did not change with a median score of 0 (none) poststent ( P = 0.2). All GERD-related questions were unchanged prestent and poststent in all categories, specifically: frequency of GERD, time of day of reflux, pain behind breastbone, and pain medications. There was also no difference in regurgitation frequency (median prestent 1 vs poststent 0, P = 0.08), texture (prestent 2 [semisolid] vs poststent 1 [liquid]). There was only a statistical change in the ability to belch (prestent 0 [no ability] to poststent 1 [ability]), P = 0.02) and the ability to vomit. Esophageal stenting across the GE junction for dysphagia relief in esophageal malignancies does not adversely effect a patient's QOL in regard to reflux-related symptoms.

Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Most patients with oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma are diagnosed at an advanced stage and require palliative intervention. Although there are many kinds of interventions, the optimal one for the palliation of dysphagia remains unclear. This review updates the previous version published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to systematically analyse and summarise the efficacy of different interventions used in the palliation of dysphagia in primary oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

To find new studies for this updated review, in January 2014 we searched, according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL; and major conference proceedings (up to January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in which patients with inoperable or unresectable primary oesophageal cancer underwent palliative treatment. Different interventions like rigid plastic intubation, self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) insertion, brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, chemotherapy, oesophageal bypass surgery, chemical and thermal ablation therapy, either head-to-head or in combination, were included. The primary outcome was dysphagia improvement. Secondary outcomes included recurrent dysphagia, technical success, procedure related mortality, 30-day mortality, adverse effects and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed in accordance with the methods of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 3684 patients from 53 studies. SEMS insertion was safer and more effective than plastic tube insertion. Thermal and chemical ablative therapy provided comparable dysphagia palliation but had an increased requirement for re-interventions and for adverse effects. Anti-reflux stents provided comparable dysphagia palliation to conventional metal stents. Some anti-reflux stents might have reduced gastro-oesophageal reflux and complications. Newly-designed double-layered nitinol (Niti-S) stents were preferable due to longer survival time and fewer complications compared to simple Niti-S stents. Brachytherapy might be a suitable alternative to SEMS in providing a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life, and might provide better results when combined with argon plasma coagulation or external beam radiation therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Self-expanding metal stent insertion is safe, effective and quicker in palliating dysphagia compared to other modalities. However, high-dose intraluminal brachytherapy is a suitable alternative and might provide additional survival benefit with a better quality of life. Some anti-reflux stents and newly-designed stents lead to longer survival and fewer complications compared to conventional stents. Combinations of brachytherapy with self-expanding metal stent insertion or radiotherapy are preferable due to the reduced requirement for re-interventions. Rigid plastic tube insertion, dilatation alone or in combination with other modalities, and chemotherapy alone are not recommended for palliation of dysphagia due to a high incidence of delayed complications and recurrent dysphagia.

Antireflux stents versus conventional stents for management of stenosis of distal esophageal and gastric cardia: An systematic review

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-reflux stents versus conventional stents for the management of stenosis of distal esophageal and gastric cardia in patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)that evaluated anti-reflux stents versus conventional stents in the treatment of stenosis of distal esophageal and gastric cardia in patients with esophageal cancer were electronically searched from the PubMed (1978-2011), EMbase (1966-2011), CBM (1978-2011), Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 11) and CNKI (1979-2011) databases, and relevant published and unpublished data and their references (either in English or Chinese), were also searched manually. The data were extracted and the methodological quality of the incorporated studies was evaluated by two reviewers independently. The RevMan 5.1 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 234 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that anti-reflux stents and conventional stents had no significant differences in terms of the incidences of pain (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.06), stent migration (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.50, 2.11), obstruction (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.52, 1.99), gastroesophageal reflux (RR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.52, 5.48), bleeding (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 0.44, 4.40), and perforation of the esophagus and stomach (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.25, 2.00).

CONCLUSION: The overall curative efficacy of anti-reflux stents for the stenosis of distal esophageal and gastric cardia in patients with esophageal cancer is not better than that of conventional stents. Because of the generally low quality and a small number of studies in the incorporated research, the above conclusion remains to be validated by carrying out more randomized controlled trials with multiple center samples and enough follow-up time.

Clinical outcomes, quality of life, advantages and disadvantages of metal stent placement in the upper gastrointestinal tract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will discuss the immediate- and long-term success, complications and overall benefits of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) in malignant or benign obstruction of the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum. Over recent years, indications such as benign disease have expanded, as has SEMS diversity with self-expandable plastic stents (SEPSs) or fully covered and biodegradable stents, for example.

RECENT FINDINGS

SEMSs have been increasingly used in malignant upper gastrointestinal obstruction with many reports confirming efficacy, despite a significant complication rate. Fully covered stents are increasingly used for a variety of benign oesophageal disease, but their place in gastric outlet obstruction is still unclear. Covered and uncovered stents have different functional characteristics and stent type must be selected on an individual basis. Biodegradable stents show promise and the outcome of experience in larger patient cohorts is eagerly awaited.

SUMMARY

This area is an evolving field, in which the clinician requires up-to-date knowledge of therapeutic options to make individualized treatment choices in difficult clinical circumstances. Technical and clinical success for oesophageal or gastroduodenal SEMSs are then above 90%. Minor complications are common, but serious complications seldom occur. Biodegradable stents may be useful, especially when stenting is needed for a short period of time.

Outcomes following oesophageal stent insertion for palliation of malignant strictures: A large single centre series

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an accepted intervention for malignant dysphagia. Stents vary in ease of insertion, removability, migration and occlusion rates. This series reports the complications, morbidity and mortality associated with several SEMS.

METHOD

A prospective database of patients undergoing fluoroscopic guided oesophageal stent insertion for malignancy between June 2001 and June 2009 was analysed. Patient demographics, intervention outcomes and tumour variables were correlated with stent failure and patient survival. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate predictors for stent failure.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-three stents were deployed using nine different types of SEMS. The median Mellow-Pinkas dysphagia score significantly improved from 3 to 1 post-stent insertion (P < 0.001), with a technical success rate of 98%. Stent complications occurred in 95 (36%) patients [recurrent dysphagia n = 49 (19%), migration n = 24 and occlusion n = 25]. Multivariate analysis demonstrates that the covered Niti S stent fails significantly more than the double-layered Niti S stent (OR = 4, P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Oesophageal stent insertion provides good palliation for malignant dysphagia, however recurrent dysphagia remains a problem. This major complication occurs more frequently with covered Niti S stents than double-layered Niti S stents. This finding may aid the stent choice used in advanced oesophageal malignancy.

Endoscopic management of difficult or recurrent esophageal strictures

Esophageal strictures are a common problem in gastroenterological practice. In general, the management of malignant or benign esophageal strictures is different and requires a different treatment approach. In daily clinical practice, stent placement is a commonly used modality for the palliation of incurable malignant strictures causing dysphagia, whereas, if available, intraluminal brachytherapy can be considered in patients with a good performance status. Recurrent dysphagia frequently occurs in malignant cases. In case of tissue in- or overgrowth, a second stent is placed. If stent migration occurs, the stent can be repositioned or a second (preferably partially covered) stent can be placed. Food obstruction of the stent lumen can be resolved by endoscopic cleansing. The cornerstone of the management of benign strictures is still dilation therapy (Savary-Gilliard bougie or balloon). There are a subgroup of strictures that are refractory or recur and an alternative approach is required. In order to prevent stricture recurrence, steroid injections into the stricture followed by dilation can be considered. In case of anastomotic strictures or Schatzki rings, incisional therapy is a safe method in experienced hands. Temporary stent placement is a third option before considering self-bougienage or surgery as a salvage treatment. In this review, the most frequently used endoscopic treatment modalities for malignant and benign stricture management will be discussed based on the available literature, and some practical information for the management in daily clinical practice will be provided.

Systematic review: quality of life after treatment for upper gastrointestinal cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this systematic review is to scrutinize and summarize the design, conduct and reporting standards of articles recently published describing health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes of treatment of upper gastrointestinal cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Some 2312 abstracts were published between January and July 2009 and initial elimination of papers reduced this number to 22 articles. Of these, 17 were judged to have robust HRQL methodology, but a further seven were excluded due to a high risk of bias in the study design. Ten articles (four randomized trials) were finally included in the review. Studies in curative treatments for oesophagogastric cancer show that surgery and chemoradiation therapy has a major short-term detrimental effect on HRQL, but recovery occurs within 6 months in long-term survivors but those not achieving a survival benefit report very poor HRQL. In advanced oesophageal cancer, 18 mm self-expandable metal stents and nonstent therapies lead to better short-term HRQL scores than nonexpandable stents and are the recommended standard of care. A small survival advantage and improved HRQL is conferred by adjuvant and palliative gemcitabine chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer.

SUMMARY

This review identified few well-designed studies that also included a robust assessment of HRQL. High-quality trials with reliable HRQL methods are required for outcomes to inform health policy and clinical decision-making.