Management of left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions with curative intent: a network meta-analysis

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of self-expanding metal stents on long-term survival outcomes as a bridge to surgery in patients with colon cancer obstruction: Current state and future prospects

Since self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) were first introduced in acute colon cancer obstruction, the increased rate of primary anastomosis and improved quality of life following SEMS placement have been clearly shown. However, it was demonstrated that SEMS are associated with higher recurrence rates. Although several trials have shown that overall and disease-free survival in patients following SEMS placement is similar with patients undergoing emergency surgery, obstruction and a high incidence of recurrence imposed many concerns. The optimal time interval from SEMS to surgery is still a matter of debate. Some studies have recommended a time interval of ~2 weeks between SEMS insertion and elective surgery. A prolonged interval of time from SEMS insertion to elective surgery and the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been proposed. SEMS-NAC might have advantages for improving the surgical and long-term survival outcomes of patients with acute colon cancer obstruction, which is an optional approach in the management of acute colon cancer obstruction.

Upfront Surgery vs. Endoscopic Stenting Bridge to Minimally Invasive Surgery for Treatment of Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: Analysis of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Left colon cancer obstruction treatment is a debated topic in the literature. Stent placement is effective as a bridge-to-surgery strategy, but there are some concerns about the oncological safety for the reported higher risk of local and peritoneal recurrence. This study aims to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients treated with stent followed by elective surgery with those treated with primary resection.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study. We included patients of both sexes, ≥18 years old, with a histological diagnosis of intestinal adenocarcinoma, and admitted to our hospital for left colon cancer obstruction demonstrated by CT scan without metastasis or perforation. They were treated through primary resection (PR) or stent placement followed by elective surgery (SR). The two groups were compared for general characteristics, surgical outcomes, and oncological outcomes (metastasis and local recurrence) at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 3 years. Post-operative quality of life (QoL) was also investigated.

RESULTS

The SR group showed a shorter hospital stay, a lower post-operative mortality, a lower stoma rate at 1 year, and a higher number of minimally invasive procedures. Oncological outcomes were not different compared to the PR group. The SR group demonstrated better QoL in two out of six items on the EQ-5D-5L test.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent placement as a bridge-to-surgery strategy is feasible and provides better surgical outcomes in terms of post-operative complications, surgical approach, stoma rate, and QoL. Oncological outcomes were not reported differently, but further studies should be conducted to better evaluate this aspect.

Colorectal Oncologic Emergencies: Recognition, Management, and Outcomes

Colorectal cancer is the third most frequent type of malignancy in the United States, and the age at diagnosis is decreasing. Although the goal of screening is focused on prevention and early detection, a subset of patients inevitably presents as oncologic emergencies. Approximately 15% of patients with colorectal cancer will present as surgical emergencies, with the majority being due to either colonic perforation or obstruction. Patients presenting with colorectal emergencies are a challenging cohort, as they often present at an advanced stage with an increase in T stage, lymphovascular invasion, and metachronous liver disease.

Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Colorectal carcinoma is common, particularly on the left side. In 20% of patients, obstruction and ileus may be the first clinical manifestations of a carcinoma that has advanced (stage II, III or even IV). Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, plain abdominal radiogram, computed tomography (CT), CT colonography and positron emission tomography/CT. The best management strategy in terms of short-term operative or interventional and long-term oncological outcomes remains unknown. For the most common left-sided obstruction, the first choice should be either emergency surgery or endoscopic decompression by self-expendable metal stents or tubes. The operative plan should be either one-stage or two-stage resection. One-stage resection with on-table bowel decompression and irrigation can be accompanied or not accompanied by proximal defunctioning stoma (colostomy or ileostomy). Primary anastomosis is more convenient but has increased risks of anastomotic leakage and morbidity. Two-stage resection (Hartmann's procedure) is safer and the most widely used despite temporally affecting quality of life. Damage control surgery in high-risk frail patients is less frequently performed since it can be successfully substituted with endoscopic stenting or tubing. For the less common right-sided obstruction, one-stage surgical resection is more beneficial than endoscopic decompression. The role of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic) is a subject of debate. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted management is advantageous to some extent but requires much expertise due to inherent difficulties in dissecting the distended colon and the risk of rupture and subsequent septic complications. The decompressing stent as a bridge to elective surgery more substantially decreases the risks of morbidity and mortality than emergency surgery for decompression and has equivalent medium-term overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Its combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation may have a positive effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Management plans are crucial and must be individualized to better fit each case.

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.

Colonic Resection, Stoma, or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: the CROSCO-1 study protocol

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. There are several causes of a mechanical left bowel obstructive but CRC accounts for approximately 50% of cases and in 10-30% of whom it is the presenting syndrome. In most cases, the left colon is involved. At present, the range of therapeutic alternatives in the management of obstructive left CRC in emergency conditions (primary resection vs. staged resection with applied self-expanding metallic stents) is broad, whereas internationally validated clinical recommendations in each condition are still lacking. This enormous variability affects the scientific evidence on both the immediate and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

CROSCO-1 (Colonic Resection, Stoma or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer) study is a national, multi-center, prospective observational study intending to compare the clinical results of all these therapeutic regimens in a cohort of patients treated for obstructive left-sided CRC.

RESULTS

The primary aim of the CROSCO-1 study is the 1-year stoma rate of patients undergoing primary emergency surgical resection (Hartmann procedure or primary resection and anastomosis) compared with patients undergoing staged resection. Secondary outcomes are 30-day and 90-day major morbidity and mortality, 1-year quality of life and the timing of chemotherapy initiation in the two groups. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of a large prospective cohort study which will analyze what really happens in the common clinical practice of managing patients with obstructive left CRC will have the aim of understanding which is the best strategy in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Indeed, the CROSCO-1 study will analyze the early surgical outcomes for patients with obstructed left CRC. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies.