Oesophageal stenting

Outcome and risk factors assessment for adverse events in advanced esophageal cancer patients after self-expanding metal stents placement

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are the treatment of choice for advanced esophageal cancers. Literature is scarce on risk factors predictors for adverse events after SEMS placement. Assess risk factors for adverse events after SEMS placement in advanced esophageal cancer and evaluate survival after SEMS placement. Cross-sectional study of patients with advanced esophageal cancer referred for SEMS placement, during a period of 3 years. Ninety-seven patients with advanced esophageal cancer placed SEMS. Adverse events were more common when tumors were located at the level of the distal esophagus/cardia (47% vs 23%, P = 0.011, OR 3.1), with statistical significance being kept in the multivariate analysis (OR 3.1, P = 0.018). Time until adverse events was lower in the tumors located at the level of the distal esophagus/cardia (P = 0.036). Survival was higher in patients who placed SEMS with curative intent (327 days [126-528] vs. 119 days [91-147], P = 0.002) and in patients submitted subsequently to surgery compared with those who did just chemo/radiotherapy or who did not do further treatment (563 days [378-748] vs. 154 days [133-175] vs. 46 days [20-72], P < 0.001). Subsequent treatment kept statistical significance in the multivariate analysis (HR 3.4, P < 0.001). SEMS allow palliation of dysphagia in advanced esophageal cancer and are associated with an increased out-of-hospital survival, as long as there are conditions for further treatments. Tumors located at the level of the distal esophagus/cardia are associated with a greater number of adverse events, which also occur earlier.

Ten-year experience of esophageal self-expanding metal stent insertion at a single institution

Palliation of malignant dysphagia can be achieved using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). This study was conceived to confirm that the insertion of SEMS improved patient symptoms without serious complications and to allow comparison with recent national data. Retrospective case note review of all patients receiving SEMS over a 10-year period between March 1999 and February 2009 was used in this study. There were 138 consecutive patients (50 female), median age of 75 (range 46-90) years, 122 (88.5%) had primary malignant disease of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. In total, 250 endoscopic examinations were carried out, with 200 interventional procedures, including the insertion of 156 SEMS. Before stenting, 74.2% of patients had a dysphagia score of 2-3. Following stent insertion, dysphagia scores improved to 0-1 in 90.3% of patients (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon signed ranks). No complications were encountered in 61 (44%) patients. Chest pain was the most frequent difficulty, encountered in 50 (36%) patients. Tumor overgrowth occurred in 17 (12.3%) patients and food bolus obstruction was seen in 7% of patients. There were no esophageal perforations attributable to SEMS insertion. Overall 30-day mortality for those with esophago-gastric malignancy was 11.6% (16 patients), although the SEMS-related mortality was 2.2% (3 patients). Median survival from SEMS insertion was 3 (IQR 1.5-7) months. Patients requiring re-intervention for tumor overgrowth had a significantly longer median survival of 9.2 months (P= 0.001, log rank). SEMS were well tolerated with overall mortality and complication rates comparable to national data. For the longer survivors, re-intervention for recurrent dysphagia was not unusual.

Pathogen-driven gastrointestinal cancers: Time for a change in treatment paradigm?

The regulation of cancerous tumor development is converged upon by multiple pathways and factors. Besides environmental factors, gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancer can be caused by chronic inflammation, which is generally induced by bacteria, viruses, and parasites. The role of these inducers in cancer development, cell differentiation and transformation, cell cycle deregulation, and in the expression of tumor-associated genes cannot be ignored. Although Helicobacter pylori activates many oncogenic pathways, particularly those in gastric and colorectal cancers, the role of viruses in tumor development is also significant. Viruses possess significant oncogenic potential to interfere with normal cell cycle control and genome stability, stimulating the growth of deregulated cells. An increasing amount of recent data also implies the association of GI cancers with bacterial colonization and viruses. This review focuses on host-cell interactions that facilitate primary mechanisms of tumorigenesis and provides new insights into novel GI cancer treatments.

Role of the preliminary susceptibility testing for initial and after failed therapy of Helicobacter pylori infection with levofloxacin, amoxicillin, and esomeprazole

BACKGROUND

Levofloxacin has been proposed as an alternative to classic therapy in secondary resistance to Helicobacter pylori.

AIM

To evaluate primary and secondary resistance of H. pylori to levofloxacin, and to test the role of susceptibility test on the efficacy of levofloxacin-based triple therapy.

METHODS

Eighty consecutive dyspeptic patients with positive (13)C-urea breath test never treated were randomly allocated into group A(1) (40 patients) and group B(1) (39 patients). Eighty-three patients already treated unsuccessfully with positive (13)C-urea breath test were divided into group A(2) (51 patients) and group B(2) (32 patients). Patients in group A(1) and group A(2) underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for H. pylori susceptibility test to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, tinidazole, rifabutin, and levofloxacin. These patients were treated with levofloxacin (500 mg b.i.d.), amoxicillin (1 g b.i.d.) and esomeprazole (20 mg b.i.d.) for 10 days if sensitive to these two antibiotics. If H. pylori was found resistant to amoxicillin and/or levofloxacin the treatment was based on the indications of the susceptibility test. Patients in group B(1) and group B(2) were treated empirically with levofloxacin, amoxicillin, and esomeprazole at the same dose and duration as group A. All patients underwent (13)C-urea breath test 2 months after the end of therapy.

RESULTS

The antibiotic resistance of H. pylori strains in group A(1) and group A(2) was (%): amoxicillin: 2.4, 10; clarithromycin: 21.9, 43.1; tinidazole: 31.7, 70; rifabutin: 2.4, 4; and levofloxacin: 9.7, 12.2, respectively. In group A(1) with susceptibility test-driven therapy, eradication was 97.2%, and in group B(1) with empirical treatment, 94.1% (n.s.). In group A(2) with susceptibility test, eradication was 97.5%, whereas in group B(2) with empirical treatment 81.2% (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Primary and secondary resistance of H. pylori to levofloxacin is approximately 10% of the tested strains. The susceptibility test does not influence therapeutic outcome of triple therapy with amoxicillin and levofloxacin in patients never treated, while it is determinant for patients who were previously treated without success.

Clinical experience and applications of drug-eluting stents in the noncoronary vasculature, bile duct and esophagus

OBJECTIVE

To review the use of drug-eluting stents outside the coronary artery.

FINDINGS

The vast majority of research and clinical data on drug-eluting stents are from their use in coronary artery atherosclerosis; however, these devices can be used outside the coronary circulation in both vascular and nonvascular structures. In noncoronary arteries the principle indication for drug-eluting vascular stents is the same as in the coronary circulation, prevention of restenosis. Human experience has been essentially limited to trials or compassionate use; two small controlled studies and a number of small observational single center reports have been published, and there are trials in progress. To date the data have not been as compelling as in the coronary circulation. The physical characteristics of each vascular bed such as external compressive forces, blood flow rates, wall thickness relative to lumen size, and vessel wall composition differ significantly from the coronary circulation and each presents unique challenges to local drug delivery. Outside the vascular bed, the principle expected use is the prevention of tissue ingrowth after stent insertion in tubular structures such as the trachea, esophagus or bile ducts.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable further study of drug-eluting stents will be required in each anatomic region to determine the ideal stent/drug combination and clinical appropriateness.