A multimodal, one-session endoscopic approach for management of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

Best supportive care in advanced pancreas cancer: a systematic review to define a patient-care bundle

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have advanced disease at presentation, preventing treatment with curative intent. Management of these patients is often provided by surgical teams for whom there are a lack of widely accepted strategies for care. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify key issues in patients with advanced PDAC and integrate the evidence to form a care bundle checklist for use in surgical clinics.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed regarding best supportive care for advanced PDAC according to the PRISMA guidelines. Interventions pertaining to supportive care were included whilst preventative and curative treatments were excluded. A narrative review was planned.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were assessed and four themes were developed: (i) Pain is an undertreated symptom, requiring escalating analgesics and sometimes invasive modalities. (ii) Health-related quality of life necessitates optimisation by involving family, carers and multi-disciplinary teams. (iii) Malnutrition and weight loss can be mitigated with early assessment, replacement therapies and resistance exercise. (iv) Biliary and duodenal obstruction can often be relieved by endoscopic/radiological interventions with surgery rarely required.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review to evaluate the different types of interventions utilized during best supportive care in patients with advanced PDAC. It provides a comprehensive care bundle for surgeons that informs management of the common issues experienced by patients within a multidisciplinary environment.

Endoscopic Double Stenting for the Management of Combined Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction

Periampullary cancers are often diagnosed at advanced stages and can cause both biliary and duodenal obstruction. As these two obstructions reduce patients’ performance status and quality of life, appropriate management of the disease is important. Combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction is classified according to the location and timing of the duodenal obstruction, which also affect treatment options. Traditionally, surgical bypass (gastrojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy) has been performed for the treatment of unresectable periampullary cancer. However, it has recently been substituted by less invasive endoscopic procedures due to its high morbidity and mortality. Thus, endoscopic double stenting (transpapillary stenting and enteral stenting) has become the current standard of care. Limitations of transpapillary stenting include its technical difficulty and the risk of duodenal-biliary reflux. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedures have emerged as a novel platform and have been increasingly utilized in the management of biliary and duodenal obstruction. As the prognosis of periampullary cancer has improved due to recent advances in chemotherapy, treatment strategies for biliary and duodenal obstruction are becoming more important. In this article, we review the treatment strategies for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction based on the latest evidence.

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited.

Endoscopic management of concomitant biliary and duodenal malignant obstruction: Impact of the timing of drainage for one vs. two procedures and the modalities of biliary drainage

Background and Objectives

Concomitant biliary and duodenal malignant obstruction are a severe condition mainly managed by duodenal and biliary stenting, which can be performed simultaneously (SAMETIME) or in two distinct procedures (TWO-TIMES). We conducted a single-center retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility of a SAMETIME procedure and the impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-hepaticogastrostomy in double malignant obstructions.

Patients and Methods

From January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2018, patients with concomitant malignant bilioduodenal obstruction treated endoscopically were included. The primary endpoint was hospitalization duration. The secondary endpoints were bilioduodenal reintervention rates, adverse event rates, and overall survival. Patients were divided into groups for statistical analysis: (i) divided according to the timing of biliary drainage: SAMETIME vs. TWO-TIMES group, (ii) divided based on the biliary drainage method: EUS-HG group underwent hepaticogastrostomy, while DUODENAL ACCESS group underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic drainage (PCTD) or EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy (EUS-CD).

Results

Thirty-one patients were included (19 women, median age = 71 years). Stenosis was mainly related to pancreatic cancer (17 patients, 54.8%). Sixteen patients were in the SAMETIME group, and 15 were in the TWO-TIMES group. Biliary drainage was performed by EUS-HG in 11 (35.%) patients, PCTD in 11 (35.%), ERCP in 8 (25.8%) and choledoduodenostomy in 1. Thirty patients died during follow-up. The median survival was 77 days (9% confidence interval [37-140]). The mean hospitalization duration was lower in the SAMETIME group: 7.5 vs. 12.6 days, P = 0.04. SAMETIME group patients tended to have a lower complication than TWO-TIMES (26.7% vs. 56.3%, P = 0.10). The EUS-HG group tended to have a lower complication rate (5% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.07) and less biliary endoscopic revision (30% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.37) than DUODENAL ACCESS.

Conclusions

SAMETIME drainage is associated with a lower hospital stay without increased morbidity. EUS-HG could provide better access because it did not exhibit a higher complication rate and showed a tendency toward better patency and fewer complications.

Temporary placement of a covered duodenal stent can avoid riskier anterograde biliary drainage when ERCP for obstructive jaundice fails due to duodenal invasion

BACKGROUND

Duodenal stenosis is one of the most common causes of failed ERCP for obstructive jaundice. Alternative approaches include anterograde biliary drainage, with higher morbidity. We report in this study the efficacy and safety of temporary placement of a covered duodenal self-expandable metal stent (cSEMS) in order to access the papilla and achieve secondary retrograde biliary drainage in patients with obstructive jaundice and failed ERCP due to concomitant duodenal stenosis.

METHODS

From June 2006 to March 2014, a total of 26 consecutive patients presenting obstructive jaundice without severe sepsis with failed ERCP due to duodenal invasion were enrolled. A temporary 7-day duodenal cSEMS was placed during the failed ERCP, and a second ERCP was attempted at day 7 after duodenal stent removal.

RESULTS

Duodenal cSEMS placement and retrieval were technically successful in all cases. Access to the papilla at day 7 was possible in 25 cases (96 %, 95 % CI 80-99 %). Secondary successful ERCP was achieved in 19 cases (76 %, 95 % CI 55-91 %, i.e., 73 %, 95 % CI 73-86 %, in an intention-to-treat analysis). Mean bilirubin level was 102 ± 90 µmol/L at baseline rising to 164 ± 121 µmol/L at day 7. There were 6 stent migrations and no adverse events recorded between the two ERCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

When ERCP for obstructive jaundice fails due to duodenal invasion, temporary cSEMS placement offers a safe and effective way to achieve successful secondary ERCP while avoiding riskier endoscopic ultrasound or percutaneous transhepatic anterograde biliary drainage.