Bevacizumab in patients treated with palliative colonic stent placement: Is it safe?

Palliative procedures for advanced obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Advanced obstructive colorectal cancer (AOCC) presents surgical challenges. Consideration must be given to alleviating symptoms and also quality of life and survival time. This study compared prognostic efficacies of palliative self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) and surgery to provide insights into AOCC treatment.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that met inclusion criteria. Using a meta-analysis approach, postoperative complications, survival rates, and other prognostic indicators were compared between patients treated with SEMSs and those treated surgically. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare prognoses between SEMS, primary tumor resection (PTR), and stoma/bypass (S/B).

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were selected (1754 patients). The odds ratio (OR) of SEMS for clinical success compared with surgery was 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15, 0.65). The ORs for early and late complications were 0.34 (95% CI 0.19, 0.59) and 2.30 (95% CI 1.22, 4.36), respectively. The ORs for 30-day mortality and stoma formation were 0.65 (95% CI 0.42, 1.01) and 0.11 (95% CI 0.05, 0.22), respectively. Standardized mean difference in hospital stay was - 2.08 (95% CI - 3.56, 0.59). The hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.24 (95% CI 1.08, 1.42). Network meta-analysis revealed that SEMS had the lowest incidence of early complications and rate of stoma formation and the shortest hospital stay. PTR ranked first in clinical success rate and had the lowest late-complication rate. The S/B group exhibited the lowest 30-day mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

Among palliative treatments for AOCC, SEMSs had lower early complication, stoma formation, and 30-day mortality rates and shorter hospital stays. Surgery had higher clinical success and overall survival rates and lower incidence of late complications. Patient condition/preferences should be considered when selecting AOCC treatment.

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.

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

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