Palliative treatment for incurable malignant colorectal obstructions: A meta-analysis

Malignant Acute Colonic Obstruction: Multidisciplinary Approach for Endoscopic Management

Patients presenting with acute colonic obstruction are usually evaluated in the emergency department and multiple specialties are involved in the patients' management. Pre-treatment evaluation is essential in order to establish the correct endoscopic indication for stent implantation. Contrast-enhanced imaging could allow the exclusion of benign causes of colonic obstruction and evaluation of the length of malignant stricture. Endoscopic stenting is the gold standard of treatment for palliative indications whereas there are still concerns about its use as a bridge to surgery. Different meta-analyses showed that stenting as a bridge to surgery improves short-term surgical outcomes but has no role in improving long-term outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is also essential in patients that may be started on or are currently receiving antiangiogenic agents because endoscopic stenting may increase the risk of perforation. Evidence in the literature is weak and based on retrospective data. Here we report on how to correctly evaluate a patient with acute colonic malignant obstruction in collaboration with other essential specialists including a radiologist, surgeon and oncologist, and how to optimize the technique of endoscopic stenting.

Relief of Obstruction in Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: Nationwide Analysis of Applied Treatment in the Palliative Setting

BACKGROUND

For relief of bowel obstruction in left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) can be placed. In a curative setting, these two strategies have been extensively studied as a bridge to elective resection. Guidelines recommend SEMS as the preferred option in the palliative setting, but adherence in daily practice is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to gain more insight into patients with LSOCC who received palliative treatment with SEMS or DS at a national level.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted in the Netherlands. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on all patients with LSOCC treated with DS or SEMS not followed by resection of the primary tumour between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were analysed. Type of treatment (DS or SEMS) for different clinical scenarios, was the main outcome of this study, and was also evaluated over the years (2015-2019).

RESULTS

Palliative treatment with SEMS or DS for LSOCC was performed in 1077 patients, of whom 79.2% had metastatic disease (M1). Patients without metastatic disease (M0) were older (≥ 80 years M0 67.4%, M1 25.3%, P < 0.001), had a worse clinical condition (ASA III 51.4% versus 36.37%, ASA IV-V 13.3% versus 4.0% P < 0.001) and presented with higher tumour stage (cT4 55.4% versus 33.5%, % P < 0.001). DS was performed in 91.5% of the patients and SEMS in 8.5%. The proportion of DS did not significantly differ between patients with M1 and M0 (91.8% vs. 90.2% respectively, P = 0.525). No increase in SEMS application was observed over the years, with a stable overall proportion of DS of 91-92% per year. In the multivariable analyses, ninety-day mortality and overall survival were not significantly different between SEMS and DS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that DS was the primary treatment modality for palliative management of LSOCC in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019, while the guidelines recommended SEMS as preferred treatment. For patients with LSOCC eligible for stenting in the palliative setting, SEMS placement should become more available and accessible as the preferred treatment option, to avoid a stoma in the terminal phase of life.

Colonic stenting in acute malignant large bowel obstruction: audit of efficacy and safety in a Singapore tertiary referral centre

Introduction

Acute malignant large bowel obstruction (MBO) occurs in 8%-15% of colorectal cancer patients. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) have progressed from a palliative modality to use as bridge to surgery (BTS). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of SEMS for MBO in our institution.

Methods

The data of patients undergoing SEMS insertion for MBO were reviewed. Technical success was defined as successful SEMS deployment across tumour without complications. Clinical success was defined as colonic decompression without requiring further surgical intervention. Rates of complications, median time to surgery, types of surgery and rates of recurrence were studied.

Results

Seventy-nine patients underwent emergent SEMS placement from September 2013 to February 2020. Their mean age was 68.8 ± 13.8 years and 43 (54%) patients were male. Mean tumour length was 4.2 cm ± 2.2 cm; 89.9% of malignant strictures were located distal to the splenic flexure. Technical and clinical success was 94.9% and 98.7%, respectively. Perforation occurred in 5.1% of patients, with none having stent migration or bleeding. Fifty (63.3%) patients underwent SEMS insertion as BTS. Median time to surgery was 20 (range 6-57) days. Most (82%) patients underwent minimally invasive surgery. Primary anastomosis rate was 98%. Thirty-nine patients had follow-up beyond 1-year posttreatment (median 34 months). Local recurrence and distant metastasis were observed in 4 (10.3%) and 5 (12.8%) patients, respectively.

Conclusion

Insertion of SEMS for acute MBO has high success rates and a good safety profile. Most patients in this audit underwent minimally invasive surgery and primary anastomosis after successful BTS.

Self-expanding metal stents versus decompression tubes as a bridge to surgery for patients with obstruction caused by colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and decompression tubes (DT) as a bridge-to-surgery (BTS) treatment may avoid emergency operations for patients with colorectal cancer-caused obstructions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two approaches.

METHODS

We systematically retrieved literature from January 1, 2000, to May 30, 2023, from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of SEMS versus DT as BTS in colorectal cancer obstruction were selected. Risks of bias were assessed for RCTs and cohort studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Certainty of evidence was determined using the Graded Recommendation Assessment. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to analyze measurement data.

RESULTS

We included eight RCTs and eighteen cohort studies involving 2,061 patients (SEMS, 1,044; DT, 1,017). Pooled RCT and cohort data indicated the SEMS group had a significantly higher clinical success rate than the DT group (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.04, 3.81, P = 0.04), but no significant difference regarding technical success (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.56, 2.96, P = 0.55). SEMS had a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays (MD = - 4.47, 95% CI - 6.26, - 2.69, P < 0.00001), a lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.05, 0.50, P = 0.002), intraoperative bleeding (MD = - 37.67, 95% CI - 62.73, - 12.60, P = 0.003), stoma creation (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23, 0.73, P = 0.002) and long-term tumor recurrence rate than DT (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 0.99, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SEMS and DT are both safe as BTS to avoid emergency surgery for patients with colorectal cancer obstruction. SEMS is preferable because of higher clinical success rates, lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain, intraoperative bleeding, stoma creation, and long-term tumor recurrence, as well as a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays. Trial registration CRD42022365951 .

Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting

Endoscopic stenting is an area of endoscopy that has witnessed noteworthy advancements over the last decade, resulting in evolving clinical practices among gastroenterologists around the world. Indications for endoscopic stenting have progressively expanded, becoming a frequent part of the management algorithm for various benign and malignant conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, from esophagus to rectum. In addition to expanded indications, continuous technological enhancements and development of novel endoscopic stents have resulted in an increased success of these approaches and, in some cases, allowed new applications. This review aimed to summarize best practices in esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colonic stenting.

Acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: Is there a role for endoscopic stenting?

The therapy of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction continues to be one of the largest problems in clinical practice. Numerous studies on colonic stenting for neoplastic colonic obstruction have been reported in the last decades. Thereby the role of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in the treatment of malignant colonic obstruction has become better defined. However, numerous prospective and retrospective investigations have highlighted serious concerns about a possible worse outcome after endoscopic colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery, particularly in case of perforation. This review analyzes the most recent evidence in order to highlight pros and cons of SEMS placement in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

Outcomes of colon self–expandable metal stents for malignant vs benign indications at a tertiary care center and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic placement of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is a minimally invasive treatment for use in malignant and benign colonic obstruction. However, their widespread use is still limited with a nationwide analysis showing only 5.4% of patients with colon obstruction undergoing stent placement. This underutilization could be due to perceived increase risk of complications with stent placement.

AIM

To review long- and short-term clinical success of SEMS use for colonic obstruction at our center.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all the patients who underwent colonic SEMS placement over a eighteen year period (August 2004 through August 2022) at our academic center. Demographics including age, gender, indication (malignant and benign), technical success, clinical success, complications (perforation, stent migration), mortality, and outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty three patients underwent colon SEMS over an 18-year period. Fifty-five cases were for malignant indications, 8 were for benign conditions. The benign strictures included diverticular disease stricturing (n = 4), fistula closure (n = 2), extrinsic fibroid compression (n = 1), and ischemic stricture (n = 1). Forty-three of the malignant cases were due to intrinsic obstruction from primary or recurrent colon cancer; 12 were from extrinsic compression. Fifty-four strictures occurred on the left side, 3 occurred on the right and the rest in transverse colon. The total malignant case (n = 55) procedural success rate was 95% vs 100% for benign cases (P = 1.0, NS). Overall complication rate was significantly higher for benign group: Four complications were observed in the malignant group (stent migration, restenosis) vs 2 of 8 (25%) for benign obstruction (1-perforation, 1-stent migration) (P = 0.02). When stratifying complications of perforation and stent migration there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.14, NS).

CONCLUSION

Colon SEMS remains a worthwhile option for colonic obstruction related to malignancy and has a high procedural and clinical success rate. Benign indications for SEMS placement appear to have similar success to malignant. While there appears to be a higher overall complication rate in benign cases, our study is limited by sample size. When evaluating for perforation alone there does not appear to be any significant difference between the two groups. SEMS placement may be a practical option for indications other that malignant obstruction. Interventional endoscopists should be aware and discuss the risk for complications in setting of benign conditions. Indications in these cases should be discussed in a multi-disciplinary fashion with colorectal surgery.

A Review of Colonoscopy in Intestinal Diseases

Since the development of the fiberoptic colonoscope in the late 1960s, colonoscopy has been a useful tool to diagnose and treat various intestinal diseases. This article reviews the clinical use of colonoscopy for various intestinal diseases based on present and future perspectives. Intestinal diseases include infectious diseases, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), neoplasms, functional bowel disorders, and others. In cases of infectious diseases, colonoscopy is helpful in making the differential diagnosis, revealing endoscopic gross findings, and obtaining the specimens for pathology. Additionally, colonoscopy provides clues for distinguishing between infectious disease and IBD, and aids in the post-treatment monitoring of IBD. Colonoscopy is essential for the diagnosis of neoplasms that are diagnosed through only pathological confirmation. At present, malignant tumors are commonly being treated using endoscopy because of the advancement of endoscopic resection procedures. Moreover, the characteristics of tumors can be described in more detail by image-enhanced endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy. Colonoscopy can be helpful for the endoscopic decompression of colonic volvulus in large bowel obstruction, balloon dilatation as a treatment for benign stricture, and colon stenting as a treatment for malignant obstruction. In the diagnosis of functional bowel disorder, colonoscopy is used to investigate other organic causes of the symptom.

Delaying surgery for optimization after colonic stent bridging is safe for left-sided malignant large bowel obstruction: Result from 10-year experience and risks factor analysis

AIM

To evaluate the operative and oncological results after colonic stent bridging for left-sided malignant large bowel intestinal obstruction and the risk factors for survival and recurrence after definitive surgery.

METHODOLOGY

Consecutive patients who underwent colonic stenting for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction were included. Patients for palliative stenting or emergency surgery, patient with low rectal tumour or peritoneal metastasis were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included stent success rate, stenting related complications, rate of stoma formation and long-term oncological outcome including recurrence rate and recurrence free survival rate.

RESULTS

From June 2011 to June 2021, a total of 222 patients underwent colonic stenting. 112 patients were bridged to surgery after initial stenting, but 7 patients dropped out. Overall survival was 35 months (IQR = 17.75-75.25 months) in the early operation group, 30 months (IQR = 17.5-49.5 months) in the delayed surgery group HR 0.981 (95%CI 0.70-1.395, p = 0.907). Sensitivity analysis performed by excluding stent complications and emergency surgery yielded the same conclusion. Overall stenting complications rate was 17.1%. 11 patients (10.4%) required emergency surgery.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between early and delayed surgery groups (>4weeks) in the overall survival and recurrence in patients who had stent-bridge to surgery for malignant left colonic obstruction. It is safe to defer definitive surgery to optimize patients and allow better recovery from initial obstruction after colonic stenting before definitive surgery without adversely affecting the oncological outcomes.

Are Thyroid Functions Affected in Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children?

OBJECTIVE

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), associated with Coronavirus disease-2019, is defined as the presence of documented fever, inflammation, and at least two signs of multisystem involvement and lack of an alternative microbial diagnosis in children who have recent or current Severe acute respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus-2 infection or exposure. In this study, we evaluated thyroid function tests in pediatric cases with MIS-C in order to understand how the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis was affected and to examine the relationship between disease severity and thyroid function.

METHODS

This case-control study was conducted between January 2021 and September 2021. The patient group consisted of 36 MIS-C cases, the control group included 72 healthy children. Demographic features, clinical findings, inflammatory markers, thyroid function tests, and thyroid antibody levels in cases of MIS-C were recorded. Thyroid function tests were recorded in the healthy control group.

RESULTS

When MIS-C and healthy control groups were compared, free triiodothyronine (fT3) level was lower in MIS-C cases, while free thyroxine (fT4) level was found to be lower in the healthy group (p<0.001, p=0.001, respectively). Although the fT4 level was significantly lower in controls, no significant difference was found compared with the age-appropriate reference intervals (p=0.318). When MIS-C cases were stratified by intensive care requirement, fT3 levels were also lower in those admitted to intensive care and also in those who received steroid treatment (p=0.043, p<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Since the endocrine system critically coordinates and regulates important metabolic and biochemical pathways, investigation of endocrine function in MIS-C may be beneficial. These results show an association between low fT3 levels and both diagnosis of MIS-C and requirement for intensive care. Further studies are needed to predict the prognosis and develop a long-term follow-up management plan.

Comparison of colonic stenting and stoma creation as palliative treatment for incurable malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is a favorable therapeutic option for patients with incurable malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). However, their long-term efficacy and safety compared with those of stoma creation have not been well investigated. This study aimed to compare these long-term outcomes between these two techniques in patients with incurable MCO.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort included patients with incurable MCO with SEMS insertion (n = 105) and stoma creation (n = 97) between January 2009 and December 2019. The primary outcomes were patency after the procedure and 1-year re-intervention rates.

RESULTS

The patency of the SEMS group was lower than that of the stoma group (88.9 vs 93.2% at 6 months, 84.1 vs 90.5% at 12 months, and 65.8 vs 90.5% at 18 months; log-rank test, P = 0.024), but 1-year re-intervention rates were not different between the groups (10 vs 8%, P = 0.558). The median patency durations were 190 days for SEMS insertion and 231 days for stoma creation. Majority (84%) of SEMS patients did not require any re-intervention until death. The early complication rate did not differ between the groups (P = 0.377), but SEMS insertion had fewer late minor complications than stoma creation (5 vs 22%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SEMS insertion is a safe and effective treatment for patients with incurable MCO. Although SEMS insertion had a lower patency than stoma creation, especially after 1 year, the 1-year re-intervention rates were not different, and SEMS durability was sufficient in most patients.

Clinical outcomes of palliative self-expandable metal stent placement in right- and left-sided malignant colon obstruction: A Honam Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (HASID) multicenter study

Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is commonly used for palliation of left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). However, right-sided MCO is usually treated surgically. Recent studies that compared palliative SEMS insertion and emergency surgery in right-sided MCOs have reported conflicting results. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of palliative SEMS placement in left-sided MCOs and right-sided MCOs and to investigate the predictive factors for clinical success and risk factors for complications. Data from 469 patients who underwent palliative SEMS placement for MCO at 6 hospitals in the Honam province of South Korea between 2009 and 2018 were reviewed. Among them, 69 patients with right-sided MCO and 400 patients with left-sided MCO who underwent SEMS placement for palliative purposes were enrolled. Clinical success, overall survival, complications, and predictive factors for clinical success and risk factors for complications were included as the main outcome measures. The clinical success rates were 97.1% (65/67) in right-sided MCO patients and 88.2% (353/400) in left-sided MCO patients. Complications including stent migration, tumor ingrowth, outgrowth, perforation, bacteremia/fever, and bleeding occurred in 10.1% (7/69) of right-sided MCO patients and 19.9% (79/400) of left-sided MCO patients. The mean overall survival of right-sided MCO was 28.02 months and 18.23 months for left-sided MCO. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, T3 stage tumors and the use of uncovered stents were significant factors for the clinical success of SEMS. The use of covered stents and performance status score of 0 to 2 were independent significant risk factors for complications. Palliative SEMS placement in right-sided MCO showed better clinical success rates than left-sided MCO. The use of uncovered stents is recommended for higher clinical success rates and lower complication rates.

Comparison of blowhole colostomy and loop ostomy for palliation of acute malignant colonic obstruction

Purpose

Surgery to create a stoma for decompression might be required for unresectable stage IV cancer patients with complete colonic obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of blowhole colostomy with those of loop ostomy.

Methods

Palliative ileostomy or colostomy procedures performed at a single center between January 2011 and October 2020, were analyzed retrospectively. Fifty-nine patients were identified during this period. The demographic characteristics and outcomes between the blowhole colostomy group (n=24) and the loop ostomy group (n=35) were compared.

Results

The median operative time tended to be shorter in the blowhole colostomy group (52.5 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 43-65) than in the loop ostomy group (60 minutes; IQR, 40-107), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.162). The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with blowhole colostomy (blowhole, 13 days [IQR, 9-23]; loop, 21 days [IQR, 14-37]; P=0.013). Mean cecum diameter was significantly larger in the blowhole group than in the loop group (8.83±1.91 cm vs. 6.78±2.36 cm, P=0.001), and the emergency operation rate was higher in the blowhole group than in the loop group (22 of 24 [91.7%] vs. 23 of 35 [65.7%], P=0.021).

Conclusion

In surgical emergencies, diverting a blowhole colostomy can be safe and effective for palliative management of colonic obstruction in patients with end-stage cancer and might reduce the operative time in emergent situations.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

METHODS

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

Factors Associated with Clinical Outcomes of Palliative Stenting for Malignant Colonic Obstruction

Background/Aims

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) can be applied to relieve colorectal obstruction secondary to incurable primary colorectal cancer or extracolonic malignancy. We aimed to identify factors associated with clinical success and the reintervention-free survival (RFS) after palliative stenting.

Methods

Cases of palliative SEMS placement between 2005 and 2019 were retrieved from the institutional database and reviewed retrospectively. Logistic regression and log-rank testing followed by Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to investigate the predictors of the clinical success of palliative stenting and factors associated with RFS, respectively.

Results

A total of 593 patients underwent palliative stenting for malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). The technical and clinical success rates were 92.9% and 83.5%, respectively. Peritoneal carcinomatosis was a predictor of clinical failure (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.65) in the multivariate analysis. Peritoneal carcinomatosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.48; 95% CI, 1.69 to 3.64) and stent expansion >90% on day 1 (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.50) were associated with a shorter RFS. Neither clinical success nor RFS was associated with extracolonic malignancy. Re-obstruction, stent migration, and perforation were responsible for most reinterventions after clinically successful palliative stenting.

Conclusions

In patients requiring palliative stenting for MCO, peritoneal carcinomatosis was associated with both clinical failure and short RFS. Stent expansion >90% on postprocedural day 1 was another predictor of a short RFS after clinically successful stenting. A large prospective study is warranted to establish factors associated with RFS after successful palliative stenting for MCO.

Considerations in the Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction

Malignant bowel obstruction is a challenging clinical problem encountered in patients with advanced abdominal and pelvic malignancies. Although medical therapies form the foundation of management, some patients may be suitable candidates for surgical and procedural interventions. The literature is composed primarily of retrospective single-institution experiences and the results of prospective trials are pending. Given the high symptom burden and limited life expectancy of these patients, management may be best informed by multidisciplinary teams with relevant expertise.

Short-term outcomes of stents in obstructive rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With acute obstruction due to rectal or recto-sigmoid cancer, the safety and success of deploying self-expandable metal stents has been controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing evidence on the outcomes and complication rates of stent placement in these patients.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of PubMed by using appropriate keywords, and manual reference screening of included articles was done. The article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment was done by four independent reviewers. A meta analyses was performed for the main outcome measures: technical and clinical success and complication rates.

RESULTS

We identified 962 articles in the search. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 32 articles in the meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate across 26 studies that reported it was 97% [95% confidence interval (CI): 95%-99%] without evidence of significant heterogeneity (I² = 0.0%, P = 0.84), and the clinical success rate across 26 studies that reported it was 69% (95% CI: 58%-79%) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (I² = 81.7%, P < 0.001). The pooled overall complication rate across the 32 studies was 28% (95% CI: 20%-37%) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (I² = 79.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of rectal stents in obstructing rectal or recto-sigmoid tumors seems to be technically feasible. A high rate of technical success, however, does not always translate into clinical success. A considerable complication rate is associated with this approach. Randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the outcomes of rectal stent placement with those of surgery.

Comparison of self-expandable metallic stent placement followed by laparoscopic resection and elective laparoscopic surgery without stent placement for left-sided colon cancer

AIM

Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement for obstructive colon cancer is widely performed as a bridge to surgery (BTS) procedure before resection. This study aimed to investigate the surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic elective surgery with or without SEMS placement to assess the efficacy of SEMS placement as a BTS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with stage II, III, and IV left-sided colon cancer who underwent elective laparoscopic resection between 2013 and 2019. All patients were divided into two groups: with and without SEMS placement.

RESULTS

The SEMS group included 24 patients, whereas the non-SEMS group included 86 patients. The serum hemoglobin and albumin levels were lower (P = .049, P = .03), and the serum leukocyte and C-reactive protein levels were higher (P < .0001, P = .022) in the SEMS group. The tumor diameter and tumor circumferential rate were higher in the SEMS group (both P < .0001). No significant differences were observed in operation time, blood loss, postoperative complications, or postoperative hospital stay. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 15 patients in the SEMS group were compared with 15 patients in the non-SEMS group. The 3-year overall survival rates of the SEMS and non-SEMS groups were 87.5% and 88.9%, respectively (P = .97). The 3-year recurrence-free survival rates of the SEMS and non-SEMS groups were 58.2% and 81.7%, respectively (P = .233). No significant difference was found in the sites of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of SEMS placement as a BTS before laparoscopic resection could be acceptable compared with other elective laparoscopic operations without SEMS placement.

Improving the value of palliative surgery by optimizing patient selection: The role of long-term survival on high impact palliative intent operations

BACKGROUND

In order to better characterize outcomes of palliative surgery (PS), we evaluated patients that experienced top quartile survival to elucidate predictors of high impact PS.

METHODS

All PS performed on advanced cancer patients from 2003 to 2017 were identified from a PS database.

RESULTS

167 patients were identified. Multivariate analysis demonstrated the ability to rise from a chair was independently associated with top quartile survival (HR 7.61, 95% CI 2.12-48.82, p=0.008) as was the need for re-operation (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.26-6.30, p=0.0012). Patients who were able to rise from a chair had significantly prolonged overall survival (320 vs 87 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although not the primary goal, long-term survival can be achieved following PS and is associated with re-operation and the ability to rise from a chair. These patients experience the benefits of PS for a longer period of time, which in turn maximizes value and positive impact.

SUMMARY

Long-term survival and symptom control can be achieved in highly selected advanced cancer patients following palliative surgery. The ability of the patient to independently rise from a chair and the provider to offer a re-operation when indicated are associated with long-term survival following a palliative operation.

Colonic stent vs surgical resection of the primary tumor. Effect on survival from stage-IV obstructive colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

the impact of surgical primary tumor resection on survival of obstructive metastatic colorectal cancer remains controversial. The primary goal of this study was to analyze survival in patients with obstructive metastatic colorectal cancer after treatment with either resection surgery or a colonic stent.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

a prospective study was performed of all patients with stage-IV colorectal cancer and obstructive manifestations, diagnosed from 2005 to 2012 and managed with either resection surgery or a colonic stent. Cases with a perforation, abscess, right colon or distal rectal malignancy, multiple colorectal cancer or derivative surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

a total of 95 patients were included, 49 were managed with resection surgery and 46 with a colonic stent. The colonic stent group had a higher Charlson index (9.5 ± 2.1 vs 8.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.01), a shorter time to oral intake (0.9 ± 1.1 vs 16.4 ± 53.5 days, p = 0.05), a shorter hospital stay (4 ± 4.8 vs 16.7 ± 15.5 days, p = 0.0001), less need for stomata (11.1 % vs 32.7 %, p = 0.01), fewer early complications (4.3 % vs 46.9 %, p = 0.0001) and more late complications (33.3 % vs 6.4 %, p = 0.001). Undergoing chemotherapy (p = 0.008) was the only independent factor related to increased survival. In the subgroup of patients managed with chemotherapy, surgical primary tumor resection was an independent factor associated with increased survival.

CONCLUSION

both treatments are effective for resolving obstructive manifestations in patients diagnosed with stage-IV obstructive colorectal cancer. Resection surgery has no positive impact on survival and thus cannot be recommended as a therapy of choice.

Stenting as a bridge to surgery for obstructed stage IV colorectal cancers - long-term outcomes of a 10-year study

INTRODUCTION

Successful stenting of an obstructing colorectal tumor can avert upfront emergency surgery in malnourished obstructed patients with metastatic disease and poor physiological condition. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of stenting followed by primary colorectal tumor resection among patients with obstructed stage IV colorectal cancer at presentation, over a 10-year period.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2016, a cohort comprising 25 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. The durability of palliation of bowel obstruction, oncological outcomes and factors influencing overall survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

No re-interventions were required for bowel obstruction during the study period. The overall perioperative morbidity rate was 16%, with no postoperative 90-day mortality. Laparoscopic resection rate was 52% and stoma formation rate was 8%. The median overall survival was 24 months for the entire cohort, and the 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 80%, 35% and 23.33% respectively. More than one site of distant metastases, peritoneal involvement, and elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels were significantly associated with poorer survival outcomes. Patients with peritoneal-only metastasis had worse outcomes, with a median survival of 7 months and no patients surviving beyond 18 months.

CONCLUSION

Stenting followed by resection of the primary obstructing colorectal cancer provides durable palliation among patients with stage IV disease, with low perioperative morbidity and stoma formation rates. Superior survival was observed among patients with single-site, non-peritoneal distant metastases.

Stenting versus surgery in obstructed malignant colorectal cancer-a review of short and long-term results

Obstructed colorectal cancers (CRCs) continue to be challenging to manage. Apart from surgical resection, the use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) has become increasingly popular. SEMS could potentially allow for the conversion of an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure, allow for the optimization of the patient's physiology, avoid the requirement for a stoma, as well as allow for a minimally-invasive approach to be adopted. This review article therefore highlights the evidence available in the literature pertaining to the use of SEMS in obstructed CRCs.

Colorectal stenting in England: a cross-sectional study of practice

INTRODUCTION

UK and European guidelines recommend consideration of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) as an alternative to emergency surgery in left-sided colonic obstruction. However, there is no clear consensus on stenting owing to concern for complications and long-term outcomes. Our study is the first to explore SEMS provision across England.

METHODS

All colorectal surgery department leads in England were contacted in 2018 and invited to complete an objective multiple choice questionnaire pertaining to service provision of colorectal stenting (including referrals, time, location and specialty).

RESULTS

Of 182 hospitals contacted, 79 responded (24 teaching hospitals, 55 district general hospitals). All hospitals considered stenting, with 92% performing stenting and the remainder referring. The majority (93%) performed fewer than four stenting procedures per month. Most (96%) stented during normal weekday hours, with only 25% stenting out of hours and 23% at weekends. Compared with district general hospitals, a higher proportion of teaching hospitals stented out of hours and at weekends. Stenting was performed in the radiology department (64%), the endoscopy department (44%) and operating theatres (15%), by surgeons (63%), radiologists (60%) and gastroenterologists (48%). A radiologist was present in 66% of cases. Of 14 hospitals that received referrals, 3 had a protocol, 3 returned patients the same day and 4 returned patients for management in the event of failure.

CONCLUSIONS

All responding hospitals in England consider the use of SEMS in colonic obstruction. Nevertheless, there is great variation in stenting practices, and challenges in terms of access and expertise. Centralisation and regional referral networks may help maximise availability and expertise but more work is needed to support this.

Endoscopic Management of Malignant Colonic Obstruction

Advanced colorectal cancer can cause acute colonic obstruction, which is a life-threatening condition that requires emergency bowel decompression. Malignant colonic obstruction has traditionally been treated using emergency surgery, including primary resection or stoma formation. However, relatively high rates of complications, such as anastomosis site leakage, have been considered as major concerns for emergency surgery. Endoscopic management of malignant colonic obstruction using a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) was introduced 20 years ago and it has been used as a first-line palliative treatment. However, endoscopic treatment of malignant colonic obstruction using SEMSs as a bridge to surgery remains controversial owing to short-term complications and longterm oncological outcomes. In this review, the current status of and recommendations for endoscopic management using SEMSs for malignant colonic obstruction will be discussed.

Evidence according to Cochrane Systematic Reviews on Alterable Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery

Anastomotic leakage reflects a major problem in visceral surgery, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. This review is aimed at evaluating and summarizing risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leakage. A generalized discussion first introduces risk factors beginning with nonalterable factors. Focus is then brought to alterable impact factors on colorectal anastomoses, utilizing Cochrane systematic reviews assessed via systemic literature search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Medline until May 2019. Seventeen meta-anaylses covering 20 factors were identified. Thereof, 7 factors were preoperative, 10 intraoperative, and 3 postoperative. Three factors significantly reduced the incidence of anastomotic leaks: high (versus low) surgeon's operative volume (RR = 0.68), stapled (versus handsewn) ileocolic anastomosis (RR = 0.41), and a diverting ostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma (RR = 0.32). Discussion of all alterable factors is made in the setting of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative influencers, with the only significant preoperative risk modifier being a high colorectal volume surgeon and the only significant intraoperative factors being utilizing staples in ileocolic anastomoses and a diverting ostomy in rectal anastomoses. There were no measured postoperative alterable factors affecting anastomotic integrity.

Endoscopic stenting in colorectal cancer

Acute malignant large bowel obstruction presents as one of the few emergencies of colorectal cancer (CRC). Management of this condition can either be by (I) upfront surgery or (II) the use of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge to elective surgery. For patients with metastasis, the use of SEMS is reported to enable earlier commencement of chemotherapy. Although the use of SEMS in patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction looks promising, it is plagued by its own set of complications and divided opinion over its long-term outcomes. Conflicting data are present, and definitive indication requires further evaluation and debate. This article will describe the typical presentation of patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction. An introduction to the SEMS insertion procedural steps will be undertaken. Following which the article aims to review the safety profile of SEMS and the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS in both the curative and palliative setting.

Ostomy Management: A Model of Interdisciplinary Care

This article provides an overview of key palliative care considerations for management of patients with wounds and ostomies. Ostomy formation is indicated for a variety of intestinal conditions. Specifics of ostomy management, impact on quality of life, and patient perspectives can be complicated. Wound ostomy and continence nursing professionals play a central role in the successful management of this patient population.

Comparative outcomes between palliative ileostomy and colostomy in patients with malignant large bowel obstruction

Objectives: Palliative stoma creation should be considered in patients at high risk of colonic metallic stent failure. However, it is unclear whether ileostomy or colostomy is superior. This study compared short-term outcomes between palliative ileostomy and colostomy. Methods: We identified 82 patients with malignant large bowel obstruction, caused by various advanced cancers, between January 2005 and December 2016. We compared short-term outcomes between the ileostomy group (n = 33) and the colostomy group (n = 49). Results: For all 82 patients, clinical success was achieved. Three patients with ileostomy died within 30 days of ostomy formation. The ileostomy group had statistically significant differences in median operative time (113 vs. 129 minutes, p = 0.045) and blood loss (8 vs. 40 g, p = 0.037) in comparison with the colostomy group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the surgical complications (30.3 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.431), in the median period to oral intake (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.335) and in the hospital stay after surgery (32 vs. 27 days, p = 0.509) between the two groups. Overall stoma-related complications occurred in 27 (32.9%) patients. Stoma-related complications occurred more frequently in the ileostomy group (16/33 vs. 11/49 patients, p = 0.014). High output stoma (6 patients) and irritation (5 patients) occurred more frequently in the ileostomy group. Conclusions: Palliative colostomy is superior to ileostomy due to fewer stoma-related complications. When ileostomy is required, aggressive interventions for high output stomas should be implemented.

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.

Urgent Management of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer: Divert, Stent, or Resect?

Despite the availability of effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, up to 10% of CRC patients present with obstructive symptoms as the first sign of disease. For patients with acute or subacute malignant obstruction that requires urgent intervention, treatment options include endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery, one-stage surgical resection and anastomosis, or diverting ostomy which may or may not be followed by later tumor resection and stoma closure. However, to date, there is no consensus guideline for the optimal approach to manage malignant colorectal obstruction. This article aims to illustrate clinical scenarios in palliative, curative, and potentially curative settings, and delineate the key factors to be considered when making an individualized decision in order to determine the optimal treatment.

Tertiary stent-in-stent for obstructing colorectal cancer: A case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are frequently used in the setting of palliation for occluding, inoperable colorectal cancer (CRC). Among possible complications of SEMS positioning, re-obstruction is the most frequent. Its management is controversial, potentially involving secondary stent-in-stent placement, which has been poorly investigated. Moreover, the issue of secondary stent-in-stent re-obstruction and of more-than-two colonic stenting has never been assessed. We describe a case of tertiary SEMS-in-SEMS placement, and also discuss our practice based on available literature.

CASE SUMMARY

A 66-year-old male with occluding and metastatic CRC was initially treated by positioning of a SEMS, which had to be revised 6 mo later when a symptomatic intra-stent tumor ingrowth was treated by a SEMS-in-SEMS. We hereby describe an additional episode of intestinal occlusion due to recurrence of intra-stent tumor ingrowth. This patient, despite several negative prognostic factors (splenic flexure location of the tumor, carcinomatosis with ascites, subsequent chemotherapy that included bevacizumab and two previously positioned stents (1 SEMS and 1 SEMS-in-SEMS)) underwent successful management through the placement of a tertiary SEMS-in-SEMS, with immediate clinical benefit and no procedure-related adverse events after 150 d of post-procedural follow-up. This endoscopic management has permitted 27 mo of partial control of a metastatic disease without the need for chemotherapy discontinuation and, ultimately, a good quality of life until death.

CONCLUSION

Tertiary SEMS-in-SEMS is technically feasible, and appears to be a safe and effective option in the case of recurrent SEMS obstruction.

What is the Best Option Between Primary Diverting Stoma or Endoscopic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery with a Curative Intent for Obstructed Left Colon Cancer? Results from a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Multicenter Cohort of 518 Patients

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic stent (ES) as a bridge to surgery in obstructed left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. Our goal was to compare the operative and oncological results of primary diverting colostomy (PDC) and ES for the curative treatment of OLCC.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2015, patients who underwent PDC or ES in a curative intent for OLCC at member centers of the French Surgical Association were included. Patients with unresectable tumors and/or synchronous metastases were excluded. Comparisons between the two groups were performed after ponderation with propensity score for: demographic and tumor characteristics, operative, and oncological results.

RESULTS

A total of 518 patients were included: PDC (n = 327); ES (n = 191). The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. ES failed in 23% of the patients (11% perforation). Cumulative tumor resection rates were 80% and 86% after PDC and ES, respectively (p = 0.049). The rates of primary anastomosis were 57% in the PDC group and 40% in the ES group (p < 0.0001). The permanent stoma rates were similar between the two groups (29% vs. 28%, p = 0.0586). Cumulative overall, surgical, and medical complications were significantly higher in PDC group. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less frequently perforated and metastatic in the PDC group. The median overall survival was significantly higher after PDC (123.6 vs. 58.5 months, p = 0.046), whereas the median disease-free survival was similar between the two groups (54.1 vs. 53.6 months, p = 0.646).

CONCLUSIONS

Although endoscopic stenting is associated with better surgical outcomes than diverting stoma, it may negatively impact histological features and overall survival.

Treatment of Rectal Cancer in Older Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older adults but current guidelines do not incorporate the associated specific challenges leading to wide variation in the delivery of cancer care to this subset of population. Here, we will review the current data available regarding the management of rectal cancer in older adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

The greatest challenge arises in the management of stage II/III disease as it involves tri-modality treatment that can be harder to tolerate by frail older patients. Response to neoadjuvant treatment is being used as a new marker to tailor further therapy and possibly avoid surgery. Oxaliplatin can be omitted from the adjuvant treatment without compromising outcomes. Physicians should perform geriatric assessment utilizing many validated tools available to help predict treatment tolerability and outcomes in older adults that can help personalize subsequent management. Most older adults can undergo standard therapy for stages I, II, or III rectal cancer with curative intent. Increasing evidence suggests that patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment may be observed closely with the possibility of avoiding surgery. Studies are evaluating alternate systemic treatments for advanced metastatic disease with the hope of maintaining quality of life without compromising cancer outcomes.

Malignant Bowel Obstruction: Reappraising the Value of Surgery

Urgent palliative surgery in the setting of advanced malignancy is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. Malignant bowel obstruction is the most frequent indication for such intervention. Traditional surgical dogma is often invoked to justify associated risks and cost, but little evidence exists to support surgical over nonsurgical approaches. Evolving evidence may provide more meaningful guidance for treatment selection.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

ᅟ

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).

Methods

The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.

Results

CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann’s procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.

With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.

Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.

Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.

Conclusions

The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Impact of restenting for recurrent colonic obstruction due to tumour ingrowth

Background

Endoscopic stenting is used to palliate malignant large bowel obstruction. A proportion of patients will develop recurrent obstruction due to tumour ingrowth and require reintervention. This study aimed to assess the outcome (clinical success and complication rates) of endoscopic reintervention compared with surgical intervention in patients with stent obstruction due to tumour ingrowth.

Methods

This was an observational study using data from a database of patients who underwent palliative colonic stenting between January 1998 and March 2017 at Christchurch Public Hospital.

Results

A total of 190 patients underwent colonic stent insertion, for palliation in 182 cases. Reintervention was performed in 55 (30·2 per cent). Thirty-one patients (17·0 per cent) developed obstruction within the stent at a median of 4·6 (i.q.r. 2·3-7·7) months after the procedure. Of these, 21 had endoscopic restenting and ten underwent surgery. Restenting had technical and clinical success rates of 100 per cent, and involved a significantly shorter length of stay compared with surgery (median 2 (i.q.r. 1-4) versus 11 (6-19) days respectively; P = 0·006). Seven of the 21 patients in the restented group underwent a third palliative intervention. The overall stoma rate in the restented group was significantly lower than that in the surgical group (4 of 21 versus 10 of 10; P < 0·001). There was no difference in complications or survival between the two groups.

Conclusion

Among palliative patients who develop malignant stent obstruction, endoscopic restenting had a high chance of technical success. It resulted in a shorter hospital stay and lower stoma rate than those seen after surgery.

Colonic stent versus emergency surgery as treatment of malignant colonic obstruction in the palliative setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Malignant colonic obstruction (MCO) due to CRC occurs in 8 % to 29 % of patients.The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing colonic SEMS versus emergency surgery (ES) for MCO in palliative patients. This was the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials in the palliative setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA method using online databases with no restriction regarding idiom or year of publication. Data were extracted by two authors according to a predefined data extraction form. Primary outcomes were: mean survival, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality and length of hospital stay. Stoma formation, length of stay on intensive care unit (ICU), technical success and clinical success were recorded for secondary outcomes. Technical success (TS) was defined as successful stent placement across the stricture and its deployment. Clinical success (CS) was defined as adequate bowel decompression within 48 h of stent insertion without need for re-intervention.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from four RCT studies totaling 125 patients. The 30-day mortality was 6.3 % for SEMS-treated patients and 6.4 % for ES-treated patients, with no difference between groups (RD: - 0.00, 95 % CI [-0.10, 0.10], I 2 : 0 %). Mean survival was 279 days for SEMS and 244 days for ES, with no significant difference between groups (RD: 20.14, 95 % CI: [-42.92, 83.21], I 2 : 44 %). Clinical success was 96 % in the ES group and 86.1 % in the SEMS group (RD: - 0.13, 95 % CI [-0.23, - 0.02], I 2 : 51 %). Permanent stoma rate was 84 % in the ES group and 14.3 % in the SEMS group (RR: 0.19, 95 % CI: [0.11, 0.33], I 2 : 28 %). Length of hospital stay was shorter in SEMS group (RD: - 5.16, 95 % CI: [-6.71, - 3.61], I 2 : 56 %). There was no significant difference between groups regarding adverse events (RD 0.18, 95 % CI: [-0.19, 0.54;]) neither regarding ICU stay. (RD: - 0.01, 95 % CI: [-0.08, 0.05], I 2 : 7 %). The most common stent-related complication was perforation (42.8 % of all AE).

CONCLUSION

Mortality, mean survival, length of stay in the ICU and early complications of both methods were similar. SEMS may be an alternative to surgery with the advantage of early hospital discharge and lower risk of permanent stoma.

Randomized controlled trial of colonic stent insertion in non-curable large bowel obstruction: a post hoc cost analysis

AIM

In view of the increasing burden on the healthcare system, this study aims to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the management of incurable large bowel obstruction comparing the cost of a stent vs surgery.

METHOD

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at two major teaching hospitals in Australia between September 2006 and November 2011. Fifty-six patients with malignant incurable large bowel obstruction were randomized to stent insertion or surgical decompression, of whom 52 were included in the final analysis. Data were collected at all points during the patient journey and quality of life data were obtained by patient surveys. All data points were analysed and a cost-effectiveness study was performed to compare the costs between the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

Stenting as a procedure was significantly more expensive than surgery (A$4462.50 vs A$3251.50; P < 0.001). Post-procedure stay for stented patients was significantly lower (median 7 vs 11 days; P = 0.03). Combined costs of stent group ward stay, multidisciplinary team discussion and complication management were significantly lower (P = 0.013). Overall cost difference between the two treatment groups was A$3902.44 (P = 0.101). European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores for the first 4 weeks gave mean area under the curve adjusted weeks of 2.411 vs 2.271 for the stent and surgery groups respectively (P = 0.603). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the surgery and the stent group was $22 955.53 in favour of stenting.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with stenting is cheaper than open surgery and provides quicker discharge from hospital.

Ostomy Creation for Palliative Care of Patients With Nonresectable Colorectal Cancer and Bowel Obstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with palliative ostomy surgery in patients with bowel obstruction and advanced stage colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

A descriptive, retrospective review of data from a prospectively collected clinical database.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The sample comprised 86 patients (55 male) who underwent palliative surgery between October 1998 and January 2009.

METHODS

All patients undergoing palliative stoma formation without resection for colorectal carcinoma were identified from a prospectively compiled colorectal cancer database. Patients having colorectal stent placement and bypass surgery were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

The median age at surgery was 71 years (interquartile range, 65-79 years). The median survival following ostomy creation was 103 days (interquartile range, 19-263 days). Sixty-nine percent of participants (n = 59) survived 30 days and 18% (n=16) survived 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that patients undergoing palliative stoma formation have limited life expectancy. Nevertheless, these findings are encouraging when compared to the anticipated outcomes of untreated bowel obstruction.

Long-Term Colon Stent Patency for Obstructing Colorectal Cancer Combined with Bevacizumab

Self-expanding metal stents can be considered as initial treatment for malignant large bowel obstruction in the palliative setting. It is suggested that systemic anti-angiogenic therapy increases the risk of stent perforation. We report a 65-year-old woman with a metastatic, obstructing colon tumor who has been successfully treated with stent placement and chemoimmunotherapy consisting of capecitabine and bevacizumab for 8 years.