Improving Quality of Life for People with Incurable Large-Bowel Obstruction: Randomized Control Trial of Colonic Stent Insertion

Pancreatic Cancer Solitary Metastasis to Colon is a Rare Entity

Metastases in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are present in over 50% of cases at the time of diagnosis, with the liver, peritoneum, and lung being some of the most common sites. By contrast, solitary distant metastasis to the colon is a rare entity but clinically significant. We report 2 cases of synchronous pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma distant metastasis to colon along with a literature review. Our cases demonstrate the utility of colonoscopy to diagnose metastatic disease. Last, as highlighted, palliative stenting can be used in cases of complete obstruction. KEYWORDS: pancreatic cancer; metastasis; obstruction; malignant large bowel obstruction; colonoscopy.

Malignant Bowel Occlusion: An Update on Current Available Treatments

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a critical complication occurring in patients with advanced malignancy. Current treatments are both surgical and non-surgical, the latter including medical, endoscopic, and percutaneous approaches. Surgery is still the treatment of choice for MBO. However, almost 50% of patients are unfit for surgery because of poor performance status. Given the high post-operative mortality rate and the frailty of MBO patients, the least invasive surgical intervention is recommended. Therefore, recent multidisciplinary recommendations have suggested considering less invasive interventions instead of palliative surgery. Medical therapy, aiming to alleviate symptoms, is usually only a part of the therapeutic strategy when managing patients with MBO. Percutaneous techniques, including both interventional radiology and endoscopic procedures, are safe and effective for symptom relief, but often do not allow oral diet resumption. Endoscopic techniques are achieving a more relevant role for MBO treatment, as supported by the widening of the indication to colonic intraluminal stenting in the latest update of the European guidelines. Current data support the use of colonic stenting as both a bridge to surgery and the definitive treatment of malignant colonic obstruction. The development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided anastomotic techniques may offer the possibility of widening its applications to endoscopic treatment of MBO, allowing stenosis to be overcome, and reestablishing the continuity of the gastrointestinal tract in small bowel obstructions as well. The introduction of new interventional endoscopic techniques and their progressive diffusion will add the possibility to adopt minimally invasive solutions to treat a critical condition such as MBO.

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.

Danish guidelines for treating acute colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer-a review

Acute onset of colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer occurs in approximately 14% of Danish patients with colon cancer(1). Given that colorectal cancer is a common cancer with about 4,500 new cases annually, acute onset will occur in a reasonably large number of patients in Danish emergency departments, and all surgeons should be familiar with the treatment principles. A revised guideline from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group is currently underway, and this status article reviews the latest knowledge and recommendations.

Predictive factors of surgery in metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Current management of metastatic colorectal cancer is based on neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Few studies have reported on surgery procedures in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The objective of this study was to describe our institutional experience with emergency surgery performed in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer during chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study including adult patients of ≤80 years with a metastatic colorectal cancer between 2017 and 2020 and undergoing surgery during chemotherapy. Statistical analyses were based on Kaplan-Meier's curve and Cox proportional hazard model. The surgery statistical risk during chemotherapy was studied through all tumor and patient's characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictive factors of emergency surgery in these patients.

RESULTS

Seventy-two cases were identified and 60% patients undergone an emergency surgery. By Kaplan-Meier's analyses, intestinal surgery was much more frequent and early in patients who have severe stenosis (either blocking or only permeable using a gastroscope) at the time of diagnosis. Patients with severe malignant stenosis presented a 6.28 time higher surgery risk (p < .0001). The median time between admission and surgery was 54 days in patients with severe stenosis who were operated.

CONCLUSION

The degree of colorectal tumor stenosis measured by endoscopy was a risk factor for emergency surgery in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this group of patients presenting low survival outcomes, further studies are needed to define the place of preventive surgery, avoiding emergency surgery and morbidity in such fragile patients.

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.

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.

Endoscopic Management of Colonic Obstruction

Large bowel obstruction is a serious event that occurs in approximately 25% of all intestinal obstructions. It is attributed to either benign, malignant, functional (pseudo-obstruction), or mechanical conditions. Benign etiologies of colonic obstructions include colon volvulus, anastomotic strictures, radiation injury, ischemia, inflammatory processes such as Crohn's disease, diverticulitis, bezoars, and intussusception.

Colonic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency rection for malignant left-sided colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) implantation as a bridge to surgery in malignant left-sided colorectal obstruction (MLCO) remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of SEMS implantation versus emergency surgery (ER) in the treatment of MLCO.

METHODS

Four major literature databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched to collect articles published before April 20, 2023. After determining random or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity tests, odds ratios (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled studies were included. The main outcomes included overall tumor recurrence rate, 30-day mortality rate, and overall incidence of complications. Secondary outcomes included mortality-related indicators, tumor recurrence-related indicators, surgery-related indicators, and other relevant indicators. The study found that there was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate between the SEMS group and the er group. However, the SEMS group had a lower overall incidence of complications (RR = 0.787, P = .004), lower incision infection rate (RR = 0.472, P = .003), shorter operation time (SMD = -0.591, P = .000), lower intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.046, P = .000), lower intraoperative transfusion rate (RR = 0.624, P = .021), lower permanent stoma rate (RR = 0.499, P = .000), lower overall stoma rate (RR = 0.520,P = .000), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.643, P = .014), and more lymph node dissections during surgery (SMD = 0.222, 95% CI: 0.021-0.423, P = .031), as well as a higher primary anastomosis rate (RR = 0.472, 95% CI: 0.286-0.7 77, P = .003), among other advantages. However, the SEMS group had a higher overall tumor recurrence rate (RR = 1.339, P = .048).

CONCLUSION

SEMS has significant advantages over er in relieving clinical symptoms and facilitating postoperative recovery in MLCO, but does not reduce the tumor recurrence rate. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with SEMS may provide a new approach to the treatment of MLCO.

Outcome of self-expandable metal stents placement for obstructive colorectal cancer: 7 years' experience from a Swedish tertiary center

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Self expandable metal stents (SEMS) is an alternative to emergency surgery to treat malignant large bowel obstruction. It can be used either for palliation or as a bridge to curative surgery. Our study aims to review the outcomes of SEMS treatment in a tertiary center and to find predictors for the clinical outcome.

PATIENT AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from SEMS insertion at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, a referral center in Western Sweden (1.7 million inhabitants), between 2014 and 2020. Data collected were age, the intent of intervention, tumor localization, complication rate, technical and clinical success, 30- and 90-days mortality as well as long-term survival for the indication bridge to surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 265 SEMS insertions (mean age 72, female 49.4%). Most SEMS were used for palliation (90.2%). The malign obstruction was most often located in the left colon (71.7%). Technical success was achieved in 259 (97.7%) cases and clinical success in 244 (92.1%) cases. Post-operative complications occurred in 11 cases (4.2%). The 30-days mortality rate was 11.7% and the 90-day was 31.7%. In our analysis the tumor site was not associated with adverse outcomes and bridge to surgery indication was a positive prognostic factor for the 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that SEMS is an effective and safe treatment for patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer.

Effects of Ozone Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life and Toxicity Induced by Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy in Symptomatic Cancer Survivors

(1) Background: The continuous improvement in cancer treatment has led to improvement in patients’ survival and a subsequent increase in the number of cancer survivors living with adverse side effects of cancer treatments, sometimes with a high and adverse impact on their health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Side effects of cancer treatments are frequently associated with chronic status of oxidative stress, inflammation, and/or ischemia. The potential for ozone treatment to modulate those processes and improve some of those adverse effects has previously been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ozone treatment on the HRQOL and grade of toxicity in symptomatic cancer survivors. (2) Methods: Before and after ozone treatment, we assessed (i) the HRQOL (according to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire) and (ii) the grade of toxicity (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events of the National Cancer Institute of EEUU (CTCAE v.5.0)) in 26 cancer survivors with chronic side effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. (3) Results: There was a significant (p < 0.001) improvement in the EQ-5D-5L index as per the self-reported outcome evaluation of patients’ health status. All the dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (mobility, self-care, activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) and the self-evaluation of the health status using the visual analog scale were significantly improved (p < 0.05). The grade of toxicity was also significantly decreased (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: In cancer survivors with chronic side effects of cancer treatment, ozone treatment can improve the grade of toxicity and the HRQOL. These results merit additional research. Further studies are ongoing.

Outcomes After Colonic Self-Expanding Metal Stent Insertion Without Fluoroscopy: A Surgeon-Led 10-Year Experience

INTRODUCTION

Colonic self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) can be used to relieve malignant and benign large bowel obstruction (LBO) as a bridge to surgery (BTS) and for palliation. Guidelines suggest the use of fluoroscopic guidance for deployment. This may be difficult to obtain after hours and in certain centers. We aimed to determine the outcomes of stenting under endoscopic guidance alone.

METHODS

All patients who underwent SEMS insertion in our tertiary referral center between August 2010 and June 2021 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patient demographics (age/gender), disease characteristics (benign versus malignant/location/stage), stenting intent (BTS versus palliative), and outcomes (technical success/stoma/time from stenting to resection/death/study end) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three (n = 39, 73.6% male) patients underwent SEMS insertion. Indications included colorectal carcinoma (n = 48, 90.6%), diverticular stricture (n = 3), and gynecological malignancy (n = 2). In five (9.4%) patients (four BTS and one palliative), SEMSs deployment was not completed because of the inability to pass the guidewire. All underwent emergency surgery. In the BTS cohort (n = 29, median 70.4 [range 40.3-91.8] years), 10 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The permanent stoma rate was 20.7% (n = 6). There was no 30- or 90-d mortality. In the palliative cohort (n = 24, median age 77.1 [range 54.4-91.9]), 16 (66.7%) were deceased at the study end. The median time from stenting to death was 5.2 (2.3-7.9) months.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS placed under endoscopic visualization alone, palliatively and as a BTS, had acceptable stoma, morbidity, and mortality rates. These results show that SEMS insertion can be safely performed without fluoroscopy.

The range and suitability of outcome measures used in the assessment of palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent.

AIM

To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set.

DESIGN

The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.

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.

Definition of large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review

AIM

Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies.

METHOD

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements.

RESULTS

A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction.

Colonic Stenting in the Emergency Setting

Nowadays, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cancer, and about a third of patients with CRC presents themselves with symptoms of large bowel obstruction. Historically, surgical resection was the treatment of choice for colonic obstruction, but this kind of approach is burdened by a high risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. In recent times, the use of a colonic stent has been proposed to overcome the obstruction and transform an emergency surgical case into an elective one to avoid emergency surgery complications. Endoscopic stenting is the first-line treatment option in the palliative management of colonic obstruction, and there is sufficient scientific evidence to support this approach. However, endoscopic stent used as a bridge to surgery is not yet widely adopted because the concern was raised about the long-term survival and cancer safety of this approach. The recent scientific evidence has shown that this approach improves the short-term outcomes, such as postoperative complications and the stoma rate, without differences in long-term outcomes compared to emergency surgery. Therefore, the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in 2020 has reconsidered stenting as a bridge to surgery as a valid alternative to emergency surgery.

Comparison of different types of covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant colorectal obstruction

BACKGROUND

Stent migration is one of the main drawbacks of covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMSs), occurring in up to 40% of malignant colorectal obstruction management cases. Various types of covered SEMSs have been developed to reduce this risk. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and complication rates of the flare-type covered SEMS (Flare) with those of the double-layered covered SEMS (ComVi).

METHODS

We performed a prospective, randomized study in four tertiary referral centers between July 2016 and April 2018. Patients with malignant colorectal obstruction were eligible for the study. The primary outcome was migration rate as observed within the first month. Rates of technical success, clinical success, and complications within the first month were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included (mean age, 70.5 ± 12.5 years; male, 31 [51.7%]). Flare and ComVi stents were applied in 30 patients each. The Flare and ComVi groups showed comparable technical success rates (90% [27/30] vs. 96.7% [29/30], p = 0.605) and clinical success rates (85.2% [23/27] vs. 75.9% [22/29], p = 0.589). Migration occurred in three (11.1%) and four (13.8%) cases in the Flare and ComVi groups, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.99), and the risk of other complications, including perforation and re-obstruction, did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that both flare-shape and double-layered covered SEMSs are equally effective options for the management of malignant colorectal obstruction with low migration rates when compared with previously reported migration risk of covered SEMS.

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.

Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials

Self-expanding metallic stent placement as a bridge to surgery has been reported as an alternative to emergency surgery for acute malignant colorectal obstruction. However, results from clinical trials and previous meta-analyses are conflicting. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between emergency surgery and self-expanding metallic stents for malignant large bowel obstruction. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for prospective and randomised controlled trials. The outcomes of focus included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival, overall tumour recurrence, overall complication and 30-day mortality rate, length of hospital and ICU stay, overall blood loss, number of patients requiring transfusion, total number of lymph nodes harvested, stoma and primary anastomosis rate. Twenty-seven studies were included with a total of 3894 patients. There was no significant difference in terms of 3-year and 5-year disease-free and overall survival. Stenting resulted in less blood loss (mean difference -234.72, P < 0.00001) and higher primary anastomosis rate (RR 1.25, P < 0.00001). For curative cases, bridge to surgery groups had lower 30-day mortality rate (RR 0.65, P = 0.01), lower overall complication rate (RR 0.65, P < 0.0001), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference 2.51, P = 0.005), shorter ICU stay (mean difference -2.27, P = 0.02) and hospital stay (mean difference -7.24, 95% P < 0.0001). Compared to emergency surgery, self-expanding metallic stent interventions improve short-term surgical outcomes, especially in the curative setting, but have similar long-term oncological and survival outcomes.

Comparison of colonic stents, stomas and resection for obstructive left colon cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgery (ES) is the standard-of-care for left-sided obstructing colon cancer, with self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) and diverting colostomies (DCs) being alternative approaches. The aim of this study was to review the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS versus ES or DC.

METHODS

Embase and Medline were searched for articles comparing SEMS versus ES or DC. Primary outcomes were survival and recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative outcomes. SEMS-specific outcomes include success and complication rates. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were estimated with DerSimonian and Laird random effects used to account for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included, involving 15,224 patients in 8 randomized controlled trials and 25 observational studies. There were high technical and clinical success rates for SEMS, with low rates of complications. Our meta-analysis revealed increased odds of laparoscopic surgery and anastomosis, and decreased stoma creation with SEMS compared to ES. SEMS led to fewer complications, including anastomotic leak, wound infection, ileus, myocardial infarction, and improved 90-day in-hospital mortality. There were no significant differences in 3- and 5-year overall, cancer-specific and disease-free survival. SEMS, compared to DC, led to decreased rates of stoma creation, higher rates of ileus and reoperation, and led to longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS leads to better short-term outcomes but confers no survival advantage over ES. It is unclear whether SEMS has better short-term outcomes compared to DC. There is a lack of randomized trials with long-term outcomes for SEMS versus DC, hence results should be interpreted with caution.

Cost-effectiveness of palliative emergent surgery versus endoscopic stenting for acute malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic stenting has demonstrated value over emergent surgery as a palliative intervention for patients with acute large bowel obstruction due to advanced colorectal cancer. However, concerns regarding high reintervention rates and the risk of perforation have brought into question its cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A decision tree analysis was performed to analyze costs and survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who present with acute large bowel obstruction. The model was designed with two treatment arms: self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement and emergent surgery. Costs were derived from medicare reimbursement rates (US$), while effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The model was tested for validation using one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Endoscopic stenting resulted in an average cost of $43,798.06 and 0.68 QALYs. Emergent surgery cost $5865.30 more, while only yielding 0.58 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER of - $58,653.00, indicating that SEMS placement is the dominant strategy. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that emergent surgery would require an improved survival rate in comparison to endoscopic stenting to become the favored treatment modality. In 100,000 probabilistic simulations, endoscopic stenting was favored 96.3% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute colonic obstruction in the presence of unresectable or metastatic disease, endoscopic stenting is a more cost-effective palliative intervention than emergent surgery. This recommendation would favor surgery over SEMS placement with improved surgical survival, or if the majority of patients undergoing stenting required reintervention.

Technical and Clinical Outcomes After Colorectal Stenting in Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction: A Single-Center Experience

Purpose

Malignant large bowel obstruction is a surgical emergency that requires urgent decompression. Stents are increasingly being used, though reported outcomes are variable. We describe our multidisciplinary experience in using stents to manage malignant large bowel obstruction.

Methods

All patients undergoing colorectal stent insertion for acute large bowel obstruction in a teaching hospital were included. Outcomes, complications, and length of stay (LOS) were recorded.

Results

Over a 7-year period, 73 procedures were performed on 67 patients (37 male, mean age of 76 years). Interventional radiology was involved in all cases. Endoscopic guidance was required in 24 cases (32.9%). In 18 patients (26.9%), treatment intent was to bridge to elective surgery; 16 had successful stent placement; all had subsequent curative resection (laparoscopic resection, 8 of 18; primary anastomosis, 14 of 18). Overall LOS, including both index admission and elective admission, was 16.4 days. Treatment intent was palliative in 49 patients (73.1%). In this group, stents were successfully placed in 41 of 49 (83.7%). Complication rate within 30 days was 20%, including perforation (2 patients), per rectal bleeding (2), stent migration (1), and stent passage (5). Nineteen patients (38.8%) required subsequent stoma formation (6, during same admission; 13, during subsequent admission). Overall LOS was 16.9 days.

Conclusion

In our experience colorectal stents can be used effectively to manage malignant large bowel obstruction, with only selective endoscopic input. As a bridge to surgery, most patients can avoid emergency surgery and have a primary anastomosis. In the palliative setting, the complication rate is acceptable and two-thirds avoid a permanent stoma.

Endoscopic Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Insertion without Fluoroscopic Guidance Is Feasible and Safe for Acute Colonic Obstruction Caused by Colorectal Cancer

AIMS

Endoscopic self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) insertion for acute colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer (CRC) is always performed under fluoroscopic guidance. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of an endoscopic stenting procedure without fluoroscopic guidance.

METHODS

A total of 36 patients with an acute colonic obstruction caused by CRC underwent endoscopic SEMS insertion using a colonoscope without fluoroscopic guidance, followed by analyses of the technical and clinical success and short-term complications.

RESULTS

Total technical success rate and clinical success rate were 91.7% and 86.1%, respectively. The mean procedure time was 21.2 ± 10.3 minutes. There was no stent dislodgement. One case of hematochezia and two cases of tenesmus occurred in patients with left-sided complete obstructions. No other short-term complications occurred. Procedure time, technical success, and clinical success rate were 16.3 ± 9.4 minutes, 93.1%, and 89.6% for left-sided obstructions, respectively, and were 26.8 ± 10.7 minutes, 85.7%, and 71.4% for right-sided obstructions, respectively. For complete obstructions, procedure time, technical success, and clinical success rate were 22.5 ± 8.9 minutes, 90%, and 83.3%, respectively. In the incomplete cases, procedure time, technical success, and clinical success were 13.5 ± 6.7 minutes, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Technical success, clinical success, and short-term complications were not differed between lesion locations and degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple technique is feasible and safe for palliation of acute colonic obstruction caused by CRC.

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.

Colonic stents for malignant bowel obstruction: current status and future prospects

Introduction: Although more than two decades are already passed from the first description of this technique, the debate remains open on the role of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement in the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). According to most recent data, SEMS placement is considered a safe and effective alternative treatment as a bridge to surgery(BTS). In addition, stent placement should be considered as primary option for palliative treatment of obstructing cancer.Areas covered: Current status, indication, technique, oncological outcomes, advantages, and risks of SEMS placement in MBO were reviewed.Expert commentary: The placement of colonic SEMS for palliation and for BTS in patients with MBO has been increasingly reported and it seems to have several advantages over emergency surgery. Substantial concerns of tumor seeding following SEMS placement, especially in case of perforation, have been raised in numerous studies. Actually, no significant differences are reported in oncologic long-term survival between patients undergoing stent placement as a BTS and those undergoing emergency surgery. Considering all the mentioned factors, indication for colorectal stenting should be evaluated only in highly specialized centers, in the context of multidisciplinary approach where risks and benefits of stenting are carefully weighed, especially in the BTS setting.

Long-term tumour outcomes of self-expanding metal stents as 'bridge to surgery' for the treatment of colorectal cancer with malignant obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To explore the long-term oncological results of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) as a surgical transition compared with those of simple emergency surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies involving long-term tumour outcomes comparing SEMS with emergency surgery was conducted. All studies included information on 3-year and 5-year survival rates, 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates, and local and overall recurrence rates; the results were expressed as odds ratios.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 articles and 2508 patients were included, including 5 randomised controlled trials, 3 prospective studies, and 16 retrospective studies. The 3-year survival rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.12, P = 0.05), 5-year survival rate (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.70-1.17, P = 0.67), 3-year DFS rate (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.42, P = 0.65), 5-year DFS rate (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 0.91-2.02, P = 0.17), overall recurrence rate (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77-1.41, P = 0.14), and local recurrence rate (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.84-2.23, P = 0.92) were determined. There was no significant difference between the randomised and observational studies in the subgroup analysis, and the 5-year survival rate was higher in studies with a stent placement success rate of ≥ 95%.

CONCLUSION

SEMS implantation was a viable alternative in malignant left colon obstruction as a transition to surgery; its long-term survival results, including 5-year DFS and overall survival, were equivalent to those of emergent surgery.

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.

Better recurrence-free survival after stent bridge to surgery compared to emergency surgery for obstructive left-sided colonic cancer in patients with stage III status of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC): a bicentric retrospective study

PURPOSE

Stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) can transform an emergency surgery (ES) into an elective surgery in patients with symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. Concerns have been raised regarding short-term morbidity and long-term oncologic outcomes, with contrasting results reported in the literature. Our main aim is to evaluate not only long-term oncologic outcomes but also short-term postoperative outcomes of stented patients who underwent elective surgery compared to those who had ES.

METHODS

From January 2006 to May 2012, we retrospectively identified patients with confirmed left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction. This was done in two centers of reference of colorectal diseases in southern Spain with patients who were treated with curative intent either with ES or SBTS. The short- and long-term results were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

There were 71 patients in the stenting group and 66 in the emergency surgery group, with similar demographic data. Initial stoma creation rates were lower in the SBTS group (16.9% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.005) and the primary anastomosis rate was higher in the same group (83.1% vs. 45.5%, p < 0.005). Five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were comparable between groups (75.3 vs. 59.8%, p = 0.220), but RFS rates at 5 years for AJCC pathologic stage III were higher in the stenting group (69.7% vs 30%, p = 0.004). Both groups were comparable regarding overall and cancer-specific survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SBTS reduces ostomy rates in patients with obstructive colon malignancies. Long-term survival results are similar. Patients in the SBTS group with stage III AJCC status showed a higher 5-year recurrence-free survival rate than those in the ES group.

Propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcome between stent as bridge to surgery and emergency resection in patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long-term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS.

METHODS

Through a national collaborative research project, long-term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS-related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three-year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease-free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease-free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS-related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision-making for individual patients.

Bowel obstruction: a narrative review for all physicians

Small and large bowel obstructions are responsible for approximately 15% of hospital admissions for acute abdominal pain in the USA and ~ 20% of cases needing acute surgical care. Starting from the analysis of a common clinical problem, we want to guide primary care physicians in the initial management of a patient presenting with acute abdominal pain associated with intestinal obstruction.

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.

Endoscopic stenting should be advocated in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer presenting with acute obstruction

BACKGROUND

It remains contentious whether endoscopic stenting or upfront surgery is more optimal in patients with metastatic colorectal cancers presenting with large bowel obstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who underwent either endoscopic stenting or emergency surgery for acute large bowel obstruction was performed.

RESULTS

Between January 2007 and June 2014, 66 patients, median age, 64 (range, 25-96) years, presented with acute large bowel obstruction from metastatic colorectal cancer. Forty (60.6%) patients underwent endoscopic stenting whilst the rest received immediate upfront surgical intervention. Of the 40 patients, 29 (72.5%) were successfully stented. The remaining 11 (27.5%) patients who failed endoscopic stenting required immediate emergency surgery to relieve the obstruction. Patients who failed endoscopic stenting had worse complications than those patients who had their stents successfully inserted [odds ratio (OR), 23.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.29-250.00, P=0.004]. Patients who underwent emergency surgery had a longer median length of stay than patients who had successful endoscopic stenting (P=0.003). The patients that underwent successful stenting had earlier commencement of chemotherapy compared to those who had upfront surgery (P=0.02). There was no difference in stoma creation rates between patients who had emergency surgery versus those who were successfully stented.

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting is a safe option in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer presenting with acute large bowel obstruction. Earlier commencement of chemotherapy occurs in patients who were successfully stented. Patients who failed stenting have equivalent outcomes to those who undergone upfront emergency surgery.

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.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Using stents in the management of malignant bowel obstruction: the current situation and future progress

The use of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) has been considered an effective and safe alternative to emergency surgery as bridge to surgery or for palliation in advanced colorectal cancer even though more recent data have raised concerns on both early and long-term outcomes when patients are treated with bridge to surgery indications. Areas covered: A comprehensive literature review of articles on endoscopic management of malignant bowel obstruction was performed. Indication, technique, outcomes, benefits and risks of these treatments in acute malignant colonic obstruction were reviewed. The clinical effectiveness and safety of SEMS in obstructive colorectal cancer, as bridge to surgery or for palliation compared to surgery, is discussed. Expert commentary: SEMS placement, when performed in tertiary level center with appropriate expertise in colorectal stenting, may have several advantages over surgery avoiding the potential for surgical morbidity in a typically frail group of patients even though these advantages are to be carefully balanced over the risk of life-threatening, stent-related complications.

Efficacy of loop colostomy construction for acute left-sided colonic obstructions: a cohort analysis

PURPOSE

Acute primary resection as treatment for left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO) is notorious for its high morbidity and mortality rates. Both stenting and loop colostomy construction can serve as a bridge to surgery, hereby avoiding the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with emergency resections. This study aims to investigate the safety of a loop colostomy in patients presenting with acute LSCO.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients that received a loop colostomy for LSCO between 2003 and 2015 was performed. Primary outcomes were mortality, major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV) and minor morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades I-II).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six patients presenting with acute LSCO received a diverting colostomy. After colostomy construction, mortality occurred in four patients (2.7%) and major complications were reported in 20 patients (13.7%). In 61 patients, the diverting colostomy served as a palliative measure, because of metastatic disease or unfitness for major surgery. The remaining 85 patients all underwent delayed resection, resulting in an overall mortality, major morbidity and minor morbidity of 6.9% (n = 6), 14.0% (n = 12) and 26.7% (n = 23), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverting colostomy construction is a minimally invasive and safe treatment option for LSCO. It can serve as a definite palliative measure, as well as a bridge to elective surgery. A diverting colostomy as a bridge to surgery might even be a valid alternative for emergency resections, since mortality and morbidity rates following colostomy construction and delayed resection appear lower than reported outcomes following primary resection.