Superiority of anti-reflux stent compared with conventional stents in the palliative management of patients with cancer of the lower esophagus and esophago-gastric junction: results of a randomized clinical trial

Impact of radiotherapy on adverse events of self-expanding metallic stents in patients with esophageal cancer

Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are considered the treatment of choice for the palliation of dysphagia and fistulas in inoperable esophageal neoplasms. However, the safety of SEMSs in patients who received or who will be submitted to radiotherapy (RT) is uncertain. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of RT on adverse events (AEs) in patients with esophageal cancer with SEMSs. This is a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary cancer hospital from 2009 to 2018. We collected information regarding RT, the histological type of the tumor, the model of SEMSs and AEs after stent placement. Three hundred twenty-three patients with malignant stenosis or fistula were treated with SEMSs. The predominant histological type was squamous cell carcinoma (79.6%). A total of 282 partially covered and 41 fully covered SEMSs were inserted. Of the 323 patients, 182 did not received RT, 118 received RT before SEMS placement and 23 after. Comparing the group that received RT before stent insertion with the group that did not, the first one presented a higher frequency of severe pain (9/118 7.6% vs. 3/182 1.6%; P = 0.02). The group treated with RT after stent placement had a higher risk of global AEs (13/23 56.5% vs. 63/182 34.6%; P = 0.019), ingrowth/overgrowth (6/23 26.1% vs. 21/182 11.5%; P = 0.045) and gastroesophageal reflux (2/23 8.7% vs. 2/182 1.1%; P = 0.034). Treatment with RT before stent placement in patients with inoperable esophageal neoplasm prolongs survival and is associated with an increased risk of severe chest pain. Treatment with RT of patients with an esophageal stent increases the frequency of minor, not life-threatening AEs.

Anti-reflux versus conventional self-expanding metal stents in the palliation of esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an effective palliative endoscopic therapy to reduce dysphagia in esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a relatively common complaint after non-valved conventional SEMS placement. Therefore, valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-V) were designed to reduce the rate of GERD symptoms. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two stents. Material and methods  This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including only randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the outcomes between SEMS-V and non-valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-NV) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were analyzed with Review Manager Software. Quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. Results  Ten randomized clinical trials including a total of 467 patients, 234 in the SEMS-V group and 233 in the SEMS-NV group, were included. There were no statistically significant differences regarding GERD qualitative analysis (RD -0.17; 95 % CI -0.67, 0.33; P  = 0.5) and quantitative analysis (SMD -0.22; 95 % CI -0.53, 0.08; P  = 0.15) technical success (RD -0.03; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.01; P  = 0.16), dysphagia improvement (RD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.19, 0.06; P  = 0.30), and adverse events (RD 0.07; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.20; P  = 0.32). Conclusions  Both SEMS-V and SEMS-NV are safe and effective in the palliation of esophageal cancer with similar rates of GERD, dysphagia relief, technical success, adverse events, stent migration, stent obstruction, bleeding, and improvement of the quality of life.

Recent Updates in Gastrointestinal Stent Placement from the Esophagus to the Colon: A Radiological Perspective

Fluoroscopic-guided stent placement has become an advantageous treatment option for diverse gastrointestinal disorders. In addition to palliative stent placement in patients with inoperable cancers, stenting has gradually expanded to other conditions, including as a bridge to surgery, as well as in patients' benign lesions and anastomotic strictures or leaks. This narrative review describes the indications, efficacy and safety of stent placement from the esophagus to the colon, including current recommendations, recent updates, and novel stents.

A novel lumen-apposing metal stent with an anti-reflux valve for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic pseudocysts (PC) and walled-off necrosis (WON) are common complications of severe pancreatitis. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage has replaced surgery as the standard treatment for PC/WON. We developed a novel lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) with an anti-reflux valve to prevent infectious complications caused by food reflux into the cyst cavity. This retrospective study investigated the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided drainage using this LAMS.

METHODS

We investigated and compared the treatment outcomes and complications rates between EUS-guided drainage using a novel LAMS (n = 10) versus plastic stents (n = 18) from December 2013 to October 2016. Technical success was defined as successful stent placement without immediate complications. Clinical success was defined as resolution of the PC/WON and disappearance of symptoms.

RESULTS

Among 10 patients in LAMS group, 4 patients had complicated PC and 6 patients had WON. In the plastic stent group, 15 and 3 patients had PC and WON, respectively. The median fluid collection size before treatment was 82.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 60.75-118.25) mm and 92.0 (IQR, 75.75-130.25) mm in the LAMS and plastic stent groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in technical success rates (90% vs. 94.4%; p = 0.999), clinical success rates (80% vs. 77.8%; p = 0.999), and complication rates (20% vs. 27.8%; p = 0.999) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment outcomes of EUS-guided drainage using a novel LAMS were feasible despite the significantly high proportion of WON. The LAMS allowed acceptable treatment outcomes for EUS-guided drainage.

A phase III, multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial on the performance of a novel esophageal stent with an antireflux valve (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) when deployed across the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) can lead to reflux with risks of aspiration. A SEMS with a tricuspid antireflux valve (SEMS-V) was designed to address this issue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this stent.

METHODS

A phase III, multicenter, prospective, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial was conducted on patients with malignant dysphagia requiring SEMSs to be placed across the GEJ. Patients were randomized to receive SEMSs with no valve (SEMS-NV) or SEMS-V. Postdeployment dysphagia score at 2 weeks and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire score at 4 weeks were measured. Patients were followed for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were randomized (SEMS-NV: 30 patients, mean age 67 ± 13 years; SEMS-V: 30 patients, mean age 65 ± 12 years). Baseline dysphagia scores (SEMS-NV, 2.5 ± .8; SEMS-V, 2.5 ± .8) and GERD-HRQL scores (SEMS-NV, 11.1 ± 8.2; SEMS-V, 12.8 ± 8.3) were similar. All SEMSs were successfully deployed. A similar proportion of patients in both arms improved from advanced dysphagia to moderate to no dysphagia (SEMS-NV, 71%; SEMS-V, 74%; 95% confidence interval, 1.93 [-17.8 to 21.7]). The dysphagia scores were also similar across all follow-up time points. Mean GERD-HRQL scores improved by 7.4 ± 10.2 points in the SEMS-V arm and by 5.2 ± 8.3 in the SEMS-NV group (P = .96). The GERD-HRQL scores were similar across all follow-up time points. Aspiration pneumonia occurred in 3.3% in the SEMS-NV arm and 6.9% in the SEMS-V arm (P = .61). Migration rates were similar (SEMS-NV, 33%; SEMS-V, 48%; P = .29). Two SEMS-V spontaneously fractured. There was no perforation, food impaction, or stent-related death in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEMS-V was equally effective in relieving dysphagia as compared with the SEMS-NV. Presence of the valve did not increase the risks of adverse events. GERD symptom scores were similar between the 2 stents, implying either that the valve was not effective or that all patients on proton pump inhibitors could have masked the symptoms of GERD. Studies with objective evaluations such as fluoroscopy and/or pH/impedance are recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02159898.).

Efficacy and safety of standard and anti-reflux self-expanding metal stent: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metal stents are the main palliative treatment modality for unresectable esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux is a common adverse outcome after placement of esophageal stent for cancer involving the gastroesophageal junction and the gastric cardia. Anti-reflux stents with valve have been designed to prevent the acid reflux. The superiority of anti-reflux stent over standard stent in preventing gastroesophageal reflux has not been established well. This study compares the anti-reflux stent and the standard stent in terms of their efficacy to prevent acid reflux.

AIM

To compare the standard and the anti-reflux stents in terms of their efficacy, safety, and complications.

METHODS

The meta-analysis included 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare pooled outcomes of total 395 patients. Primary outcomes include improvement in reflux symptoms and dysphagia score. Secondary outcomes include complications of stent migration, occlusion, and bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard stent, the anti-reflux stent showed a trend towards reduction in the dysphagia score without reaching a statistical significance [Standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.33 (-0.71, 0.05); P = 0.09, I²: 37%]. There was no statistical difference in the gastrointestinal reflux (GER) scores between the two types of stents [SMD: -0.17 (-0.78, 0.45); P = 0.008, I²: 74%]. Compared to standard stent, anti-reflux stent showed no difference in the risk of stent migration [OR: 1.37 (0.66, 2.83); P = 0.40, I²: 0 %], bleeding [OR: 1.43 (0.40, 5.13); P = 0.59, I²: 0 %], and obstruction [OR: 1.66 (0.60, 4.60); P = 0.33, I²: 0 %].

CONCLUSION

Traditional self-expanding standard esophageal stent and anti-reflux stent with valve are similar in terms of outcomes and complications.

Oesophageal stenting: Status quo and future challenges

Oesophageal stents are widely used for palliating dysphagia from malignant obstruction. They are also used with increasing frequency in the treatment of oesophageal perforation, as well as benign strictures from a variety of causes. Improved oncological treatments have led to prolonged survival of patients treated with palliative intent; as a consequence, stents need to function and last longer in order to avoid repeat procedures. There is also increasing need for meticulous procedure planning, careful selection of the device most appropriate for the individual patient and planned follow-up. Furthermore, as more patients are cured, there will be more issues with resultant long-term side-effects, such as recalcitrant strictures due to radiotherapy or anastomotic scarring, which will have to be addressed. Stent design needs to keep up with the progress of cancer treatment, in order to offer patients the best possible long-term result. This review article attempts to illustrate the changing realities in oesophageal stenting, differences in current stent designs and behaviour, as well as the pressing need to refine and modify devices in order to meet the new challenges.

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.

Treatment for unresectable or metastatic oesophageal cancer: current evidence and trends

Approximately half of the patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer present with unresectable or metastatic disease. Treatment for these patients aims to control dysphagia and other cancer-related symptoms, improve quality of life and prolong survival. In the past 25 years, modestly improved outcomes have been achieved in the treatment of patients with inoperable non-metastatic cancer who are medically not fit for surgery or have unresectable, locally advanced disease. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy offers the best outcomes in these patients. In distant metastatic oesophageal cancer, several double-agent or triple-agent chemotherapy regimens have been established as first-line treatment options. In addition, long-term results of multiple large randomized phase III trials using additional targeted therapies have been published in the past few years, affecting contemporary clinical practice and future research directions. For the local treatment of malignant dysphagia, various treatment options have emerged, and self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is currently the most widely applied method. Besides the continuous search for improved SEMS designs to minimize the risk of associated complications, efforts have been made to develop and evaluate the efficacy of antireflux stents and irradiation stents. This Review outlines the current evidence and ongoing trends in the different modern-day, multidisciplinary interventions for patients with unresectable or metastatic oesophageal cancer with an emphasis on key randomized trials.

Complications of stent placement in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Palliative treatments and stents are necessary for relieving dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to simultaneously compare available treatments in terms of complications.

Methods

Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi² test and was quantified by I². The results of this study were summarized in terms of Risk Ratio (RR). The random effects model was used to report the results. The rank probability for each treatment was calculated using the p-score.

Results

Out of 17855 references, 24 RCTs reported complications including treatment related death (TRD), bleeding, stent migration, aspiration, severe pain and fistula formation. In the ranking of treatments, thermal ablative therapy (p-score = 0.82), covered Evolution® stent (p-score = 0.70), brachytherapy (p-score = 0.72) and antireflux stent (p-score = 0.74) were better treatments in the network of TRD. Thermal ablative therapy (p-score = 0.86), the conventional stent (p-score = 0.62), covered Evolution® stent (p-score = 0.96) and brachytherapy (p-score = 0.82) were better treatments in the network of bleeding complications. Covered Evolution® (p-score = 0.78), uncovered (p-score = 0.88) and irradiation stents (p-score = 0.65) were better treatments in network of stent migration complications. In the network of severe pain, Conventional self-expandable nitinol alloy covered stent (p-score = 0.73), polyflex (p-score = 0.79), latex prosthesis (p-score = 0.96) and brachytherapy (p-score = 0.65) were better treatments.

Conclusion

According to our results, thermal ablative therapy, covered Evolution® stents, brachytherapy, and antireflux stents are associated with a lower risk of TRD. Moreover, thermal ablative therapy, conventional, covered Evolution® and brachytherapy had lower risks of bleeding. Overall, fewer complications were associated with covered Evolution® stent and brachytherapy.

Comparison between gastrostomy feeding and self-expandable metal stent insertion for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia

BACKGROUND

Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion and percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) feeding are commonly used for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. This study aimed to compare outcomes between SEMS insertion and PG feeding for them.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 308 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent fully covered SEMS insertion (stent group) or PG (gastrostomy group) for dysphagia due to tumor. Patients with other causes of dysphagia, such as radiation-induced or postoperative stricture, were excluded from the study. Clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups, including overall survival and need for additional intervention and postprocedural nutritional status.

RESULTS

At baseline, the stent group (n = 169) had more stage IV patients, less cervical cancers, and received radiotherapy and esophagectomy less often than the gastrostomy group (n = 64). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed higher overall survival in the gastrostomy group than in the stent group. Multivariate analysis revealed that PG was associated with better survival compared with SEMS insertion (hazard ratio 0.541, 95% confidence interval 0.346-0.848, p = 0.007). In addition, the gastrostomy group needed additional intervention less often (3.1% vs. 21.9%, p < 0.001) and experienced less decrease in serum albumin levels (-0.15 ± 0.56 g/dL vs. -0.39 ± 0.58 g/dL, p = 0.011) than the stent group after procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggested that, compared with SEMS insertion, PG is associated with better overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. Stabilized nutritional status by PG may play a role in improving patient survival.

Novel stent in the palliation of malignant esophageal strictures: a retrospective study

The placement of metal stents is often used as a palliative treatment for malignant esophageal stenosis. We designed a novel stent that has been used clinically since 2011, and we therefore performed a retrospective study to compare the therapeutic effects of this novel metal stent to a conventional partially covered metal stent in patients with malignant esophageal strictures. The records of 201 consecutive patients who underwent placement of either the conventional partially covered metal stents (Group A, n = 92) or the new metal stents (Group B, n = 109) in the Endoscopy Center of General Hospital of Chengdu Military Command from October 2008 to March 2013 were reviewed. The median dysphagia score significantly improved in both groups 1 week following stent placement (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in success rate (P = 0.910) or the complication rate (P = 0.426) between groups. Six months after stent placement, recurrent dysphagia due to stent migration, tissue ingrowth or overgrowth or food obstruction occurred in 45% and 29% of patients in the conventional stent and new stent groups, respectively. The results of this retrospective study indicate that the new modified self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) is at least as safe and effective as the conventional partially covered SEMS in treatment of malignant esophageal strictures.

Complications of therapeutic gastroscopy/colonoscopy other than resection

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is profoundly utilized for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The therapeutic potential of GI endoscopy has amplified many folds with the evolution of novel techniques as well as equipments. However, with the augmentation of therapeutic endoscopy, the extent, likelihood and severity of adverse events have increased as well. The attendant risks and adverse events with therapeutic endoscopy are many folds that of diagnostic endoscopy. Besides endoscopic resection, therapeutic endoscopy is widely utilized for hemostasis in GI bleeds, dilatation of stenosis, enteral stenting, foreign body removal, ablation of Barrett's esophagus etc. Major adverse events associated with interventional endoscopic procedures include bleeding and perforation. Adverse events of endoscopic interventions are diverse and related to the underlying disease, therapeutic modality used and operator's experience. Many of these adverse events can be prevented. Early recognition of an unavoidable adverse event is important to minimize the associated morbidity and mortality.

Interventional Therapy of Esophageal Cancer

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in China. Despite a lot of advances in diagnosis and therapy, the survival rate of patients with EC is low. There is urgent need for a variety of methods and techniques to improve the survival time and alleviate the lesions of EC. Nowadays, alternative and less invasive approaches to the treatment of ECs are being identified. Here, we review several main interventional methods at different stages of EC, including endoscopic resection, stent placement, arterial infusion, photodynamic therapy, and radiofrequency ablation. This review will focus on the indications, methods, clinical outcomes, and complications of these methods, which may help guide the way forward.

Value in palliative cancer surgery: A critical assessment

Emergency operations are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost compared to elective operations. Palliative and emergent surgery for patients with advanced malignancies is associated with additional risk and remains controversial. Emergent or palliative interventions can be broadly categorized according to indication. Tumor related complications (bleeding, obstruction, or perforation) merit specific consideration, as do specific presentations such as pneumoperitoneum, pneumatosis intestinalis, or peritonitis from other causes that may arise during active therapy for malignancies. Although nonoperative, endoscopic, and interventional treatment modalities are frequently available, surgery remains the only effective therapy in selected situations such as small intestinal obstruction and tumor perforation. Selection of patients for surgery requires consideration of factors including overall prognosis, performance status, and patients' priorities. Selection and risk assessment tools underscore the limited capacity of patients' with higher risk features for durable recovery but do not supplant nuanced clinical judgment. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:311-315. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Palliation of Dysphagia in Carcinoma Esophagus

Esophageal carcinoma has a special place in gastrointestinal carcinomas because it contains two main types, namely, squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Carcinoma esophagus patients require some form of palliation because of locally advanced stage or distant metastasis, where it cannot be subjected to curable treatment with surgery and chemoradiation. Many modalities of palliation of dysphagia are available, but the procedure with least morbidity, mortality, and long-term palliation of dysphagia needs to be chosen for the patient. This study aims to discuss the recent trends in palliation of dysphagia with promising results and the most suitable therapy for palliation of dysphagia in a given patient. A total of 64 articles that were published between years 2005 and 2015 on various modes of palliation of dysphagia in carcinoma esophagus were studied, which were mainly randomized and prospective studies. Through this study, we conclude that stents are the first choice of therapy for palliation, which is safe and cost-effective, and they can be combined with either radiotherapy or chemotherapy for long-term palliation of dysphagia with good quality of life. Radiotherapy can be used as a second-line treatment modality.

Antireflux versus conventional self-expanding metallic Stents (SEMS) for distal esophageal cancer: results of a multicenter randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are commonly used in the palliation of dysphagia in patients with inoperable esophageal carcinoma. However, they predispose to gastroesophageal reflux when deployed across the gastroesophageal junction. The aims of this study were to: 1) assess the influence of the antireflux valve on trans-prosthetic reflux (primary outcome); and 2) compare the results of SEMS with and without antireflux valve in terms of reflux symptoms, quality of life (QOL), improvement of dysphagia and adverse events (secondary outcomes).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients were enrolled in nine centers. Carcinomas were locally advanced (47 %) or metastatic. After randomization, patients received either a covered SEMS with antireflux valve (n = 20) or a similar type of SEMS with no antireflux device but assigned to standard proton pump inhibitor therapy and postural advice (n = 18). Trans-prosthetic reflux was assessed at day 2 using a radiological score based on barium esophagography performed after Trendelenburg maneuver and graded from 0 (no reflux) to 12 (maximum). Monthly telephone interviews were conducted for Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) scoring from 0 (excellent) to 5 (poor), QOL assessment (based on the Reflux-Qual Simplifié scoring system) from 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent), dysphagia scoring from 0 (no dysphagia) to 5 (complete dysphagia) and regurgitation scoring from 0 (no regurgitation) to 16 (maximum).

RESULTS

No difference was noted in terms of age, sex, size of lesion, prosthesis length or need for dilation prior to SEMS placement. No difficulty in placing SEMS nor complications were noted. Radiological scores of reflux were found to be significantly lower in patients with an antireflux stent compared to the conventional stent and associated measures. The regurgitation scores were significantly decreased in patients with antireflux stents during the first 2 months after stent placement and thereafter, they were similar in the two groups. QOL and dysphagia were improved in both groups. Survival rates were comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was observed between the two types of SEMS regarding the palliation of dysphagia and improvement of QOL. However, SEMS with an antireflux valve were more effective in preventing trans-prosthetic gastroesophageal reflux but at the cost of an increased likehood of minor adverse events (migrations and/or obstruction of the SEMS).

Gastrointestinal stenting: Current status and imaging features

The use of stents in the gastrointestinal tract has been subjected to major changes. Initially, the use of stents was restricted to malignant strictures in patients with metastatic disease. But thanks to reduction of the morbidity and mortality rates, they are now used with curative intention and in patients with benign diseases after careful selection. However, for patients presenting with colon obstruction due to an advanced colon carcinoma, the mortality and morbidity are still high. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of indications, techniques and further developments of the stents in the gastrointestinal tract and to highlight the predominant role of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) in the detection of potential complications.

Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Most patients with oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma are diagnosed at an advanced stage and require palliative intervention. Although there are many kinds of interventions, the optimal one for the palliation of dysphagia remains unclear. This review updates the previous version published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to systematically analyse and summarise the efficacy of different interventions used in the palliation of dysphagia in primary oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

To find new studies for this updated review, in January 2014 we searched, according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL; and major conference proceedings (up to January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in which patients with inoperable or unresectable primary oesophageal cancer underwent palliative treatment. Different interventions like rigid plastic intubation, self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) insertion, brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, chemotherapy, oesophageal bypass surgery, chemical and thermal ablation therapy, either head-to-head or in combination, were included. The primary outcome was dysphagia improvement. Secondary outcomes included recurrent dysphagia, technical success, procedure related mortality, 30-day mortality, adverse effects and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed in accordance with the methods of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 3684 patients from 53 studies. SEMS insertion was safer and more effective than plastic tube insertion. Thermal and chemical ablative therapy provided comparable dysphagia palliation but had an increased requirement for re-interventions and for adverse effects. Anti-reflux stents provided comparable dysphagia palliation to conventional metal stents. Some anti-reflux stents might have reduced gastro-oesophageal reflux and complications. Newly-designed double-layered nitinol (Niti-S) stents were preferable due to longer survival time and fewer complications compared to simple Niti-S stents. Brachytherapy might be a suitable alternative to SEMS in providing a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life, and might provide better results when combined with argon plasma coagulation or external beam radiation therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Self-expanding metal stent insertion is safe, effective and quicker in palliating dysphagia compared to other modalities. However, high-dose intraluminal brachytherapy is a suitable alternative and might provide additional survival benefit with a better quality of life. Some anti-reflux stents and newly-designed stents lead to longer survival and fewer complications compared to conventional stents. Combinations of brachytherapy with self-expanding metal stent insertion or radiotherapy are preferable due to the reduced requirement for re-interventions. Rigid plastic tube insertion, dilatation alone or in combination with other modalities, and chemotherapy alone are not recommended for palliation of dysphagia due to a high incidence of delayed complications and recurrent dysphagia.

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

Role of stenting in the palliation of gastroesophageal junction cancer: A brief review

Gastroesophageal junction cancer has an increasing incidence in western countries. It is inoperable when first manifested in more than 50% of cases. So, palliation is the only therapeutic option for the advanced disease to relieve dysphagia and its consequences in weakened patients with an estimated mean survival under 6 mo. This article has tried to identify trends focusing on current information about the best palliative treatment, with an emphasis on the role of stenting. Self-expanding stent placement, either metal or plastic, is the main management option. However, this anatomical location creates some particular problems for stent safety and effectiveness which may be overcome by properly designed novel stents. The stents ensure a good quality of life and must be preferred over other alternative methods of loco-regional modalities, i.e., external radiation, laser thermal or photodynamic therapy. Although stent placement is generally a simple, safe and effective method, there are sometimes complications, increasing the morbidity and mortality rate. Bypass operative procedures have now been abandoned as a first choice. The stomach instead of the colon must be used for a bypass operation when it is needed. Chemotherapy, despite the toxicity, and intraluminal radiation (brachytherapy) have a well-defined role.

Long-term efficacy of pneumatic dilation and esophageal stenting for the treatment of achalasia

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation with stenting for the treatment of achalasia.

METHODS

Achalasia patients treated with pneumatic dilation or stenting were included in this analysis. Clinical symptoms were assessed by the Eckardt score. An esophagram and esophageal manometry were performed at the pretreatment and posttreatment follow-up visits. Data such as patient demographics and complications were collected. A drop in the Eckardt score to ≤3 was defined as treatment success.

RESULTS

There were 151 patients treated with pneumatic dilation (n = 76) or stenting (n = 75). The 1-, 12- and 24-month therapeutic success rates were 100, 92 and 79%, respectively, in the dilation group and 100, 93 and 87%, respectively, in the stenting group. The decrease of Eckardt score in the stenting group was significantly notable (p < 0.05) compared to that of the dilation group at the long-term follow-up visits. The maximum esophageal diameter was comparable at baseline and became statistically significant [25 mm (22-30) vs. 22 mm (19-27), p = 0.004] at posttreatment month 24. The recurrence rate was 21% in the dilation group and 13% in the stenting group. The complications of either treatment were usually mild, transient and statistically insignificant.

CONCLUSION

Esophageal stenting had a comparable short-term but better long-term efficacy in comparison with pneumatic dilation.

Evidence-based recommendations on upper gastrointestinal tract stenting: a report from the stent study group of the korean society of gastrointestinal endoscopy

Endoscopic stents have evolved dramatically over the past 20 years. With the introduction of uncovered self-expanding metal stents in the early 1990s, they are primarily used to palliate symptoms of malignant obstruction in patients with inoperable gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. At present, stents have emerged as an effective, safe, and less invasive alternative for the treatment of malignant GI obstruction. Clinical decisions about stent placement should be made based on the exact understanding of the patient's condition. These recommendations based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus are made for the purpose of providing endoscopists with information about stent placement. These can be helpful for management of patients with inoperable cancer or various nonmalignant conditions in the upper GI tract.

Outcome and complications of long-term self-expanding esophageal stenting

Esophageal stenting with self-expanding plastic or covered metal stents is believed to be safe and effective. As data on the outcome of patients with long-term stenting are not available, this study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of long-term esophageal stenting. From 2002 to 2008, 70 patients with long-term esophageal stenting for various indications from a prospective database were included into further analysis. The median stent period was 297 (124-1980) days during a mean follow-up time of 55 ± 52.4 months. Overall complication rate was 30% with a primary success rate of 97.2%. The stent-related total reintervention rate was 17.1%. There were no correlations between stent characteristics and the risk of complication or migration. No stent-related death was observed. Our data provide evidence that long-period esophageal stenting is safe and effective for various indications.

Stent placement for esophageal strictures: an update

The use of stents for esophageal strictures has evolved rapidly over the past 10 years, from rigid plastic tubes to flexible self-expanding metal (SEMS), plastic (SEPS) and biodegradable stents. For the palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia both SEMS and SEPS effectively provide a rapid relief of dysphagia. SEMS are preferred over SEPS, as randomized controlled trials have shown more technical difficulties and late migration with plastic stents. Despite specific characteristics of recently developed stents, recurrent dysphagia due to food impaction, tumoral and nontumoral tissue overgrowth, or stent migration, remain a major challenge. The efficacy of stents with an antireflux valve for patients with distal esophageal cancer varies between different stent designs. Concurrent treatment with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy seems to be safe and effective. In the future, it can be expected that removable stents will be used as a bridge to surgery to maintain luminal patency during neoadjuvant treatment. For benign strictures, new stent designs, such as fully covered SEMS and biodegradable stents, may potentially reduce complications during stent removal.

Technical feasibility and safety of a new, implantable reflux control system to prevent gastroesophageal reflux in patients with stents placed through the lower esophageal sphincter (with video)

BACKGROUND

When an esophageal stent is placed through the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), gastroesophageal reflux symptoms may persist despite high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy. A recently developed, short segment, uncovered nitinol stent with a tricuspid-like valve can be placed inside a previously placed esophageal stent.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of a reflux control system (RCS) in distally placed esophageal stents.

DESIGN

A prospective case series.

SETTING

Two tertiary-care referral centers.

PATIENTS

This study involved 10 patients who had an "open" stent placed through the LES and 1 patient with severe bile reflux after esophagojejunostomy.

INTERVENTION

Placement of an RCS with fluoroscopic and (in selected cases) endoscopic guidance, from April to October 2010.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Technical success of RCS placement and complications.

RESULTS

Placement of an RCS was successful on the first attempt in all patients; complete expansion to the wall of the host stent was confirmed by fluoroscopy in all cases. In 3 patients, the host stent migrated in <1 month with the RCS still inside. In 8 patients, the RCS was in place for a median of 134 days (range 33-225 days). Three patients died because of malignant disease progression. Eight RCSs were removed endoscopically, together with the host stent without complications. RCS migration did not occur.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of patients, nonrandomized design, lack of pH measurements.

CONCLUSION

Placement of an RCS in a host stent is technically feasible and safe. An RCS can be considered in symptomatic patients with open esophageal stents to prevent gastroesophageal reflux.

Endoscopic management of difficult or recurrent esophageal strictures

Esophageal strictures are a common problem in gastroenterological practice. In general, the management of malignant or benign esophageal strictures is different and requires a different treatment approach. In daily clinical practice, stent placement is a commonly used modality for the palliation of incurable malignant strictures causing dysphagia, whereas, if available, intraluminal brachytherapy can be considered in patients with a good performance status. Recurrent dysphagia frequently occurs in malignant cases. In case of tissue in- or overgrowth, a second stent is placed. If stent migration occurs, the stent can be repositioned or a second (preferably partially covered) stent can be placed. Food obstruction of the stent lumen can be resolved by endoscopic cleansing. The cornerstone of the management of benign strictures is still dilation therapy (Savary-Gilliard bougie or balloon). There are a subgroup of strictures that are refractory or recur and an alternative approach is required. In order to prevent stricture recurrence, steroid injections into the stricture followed by dilation can be considered. In case of anastomotic strictures or Schatzki rings, incisional therapy is a safe method in experienced hands. Temporary stent placement is a third option before considering self-bougienage or surgery as a salvage treatment. In this review, the most frequently used endoscopic treatment modalities for malignant and benign stricture management will be discussed based on the available literature, and some practical information for the management in daily clinical practice will be provided.

Varadarajulu S, Banerjee S, Barth B, Desilets D, Kaul V, Kethu S, Pedrosa M, Pfau P, Tokar J, Wang A, Song LMWK, Rodriguez S. Enteral stents

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2010 for articles related to enteral, esophageal, duodenal, and colonic stents. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Expandable stents for malignant esophageal disease

Esophageal cancer is diagnosed in about 400,000 patients each year worldwide, and its incidence is increasing faster than that of any other malignancy. This makes it the ninth most common malignancy and sixth on the list of cancer mortality causes. Most patients with esophageal cancer present at a stage that is too advanced for curative therapy, and many die within a few months. Treatment of dysphagia is the main goal of palliative care in more than 50% of incurable cases. Although many different palliative options for malignant dysphagia are available, expandable stent placement is the most commonly performed treatment modality.

The use of self-expanding stents in esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer palliation: a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to examine the impact of self-expanding stents versus locoregional treatment modalities in the setting of esophageal cancer palliation.

METHODS

The present meta-analysis pooled the effects of outcomes of 1,027 patients enrolled in 16 randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis revealed an advantage to the use of stents compared to locoregional modality treatments with respect to the number of patients requiring reinterventions, although the latter treatment arm had a higher 1-year survival. No difference was observed between the use of the antireflux stents and conventional stents in relieving reflux. Previous chemoradiotherapy had no impact on complications, procedural deaths, and overall patient survival. Differences in outcomes among stents were minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional self-expanding stents and anti-reflux stents are equally effective. Although the risk difference for 1-year survival favoured locoregional palliative treatment modalities, the latter were associated with a higher number of patients requiring reintervention.

A new metal stent with a controlled-release system for palliation of malignant dysphagia: a prospective, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metal stents are frequently used for the palliation of malignant dysphagia. Recently, a new stent design, the Evolution stent (Cook Medical, Limerick, Ireland), was developed. The stent has an internal and external silicone coating to resist tissue ingrowth and uncoated dual flanges on both ends to prevent migration. Its controlled-release system may allow full control and precise positioning of the stent.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and clinical effectiveness of the Evolution stent for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with malignant strictures located in the esophagus (n = 33 [75%]) or gastric cardia (n = 11 [25%]).

METHODS

All patients who underwent placement of an esophageal Evolution stent from February to December 2008 received follow-up telephone calls 14 days after treatment and thereafter monthly until death. Data on technical and clinical outcome, complications, and recurrent dysphagia were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients (32 [73%] men, median age 74 years [range 48-91 years]) were treated with the Evolution stent. The median tumor length was 6 cm (range 1-11 cm). Stent placement was technically successful in 41 patients. Dysphagia improved from a median of 3 (ability to swallow liquids only) to 1 (ability to eat some solid foods) 4 weeks after stent placement. Major complications occurred in 4 (9%) patients, ie, pneumonia (3 patients) and hemorrhage (1 patient). Two (5%) patients died of pneumonia. Minor complications included gastroesophageal reflux and mild retrosternal pain in 11 (25%) and 4 (9%) patients, respectively. Recurrent dysphagia developed in 11 (25%) patients as a result of tissue ingrowth or overgrowth (6 patients; 14%), food impaction (3 patients; 7%), or stent migration (2 patients; 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Evolution stent is safe and effective for the palliation of dysphagia from esophageal and gastric cardia cancer. Randomized trials are needed to compare this device with other stent designs.

Antireflux stent versus conventional stent in the palliation of distal esophageal cancer. A randomized, multicenter clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Patients with incurable distal esophageal or cardia cancer often need palliative stenting to relieve their dysphagia but stents passing through the cardia can cause reflux and aspiration, leading to a reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). This study addressed the hypothesis that antireflux stenting improves HRQL compared to conventional stenting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a single-blind, multicenter, randomized trial in patients with inoperable esophageal or cardia cancer requiring palliative stenting passing through the cardia, 65 patients were stented. Patients received either an antireflux stent (Esophageal Z-Stent with Dua antireflux valve; n = 28) or a conventional stent (Esophageal Z-stent, Ultraflex or Wallstent; n = 37). Validated questionnaires (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18) were used to collect information on HRQL at baseline and 1 and 3 months after stenting. Main outcome measurements were differences in HRQL scores between baseline and 1 and 3 months after stenting.

RESULTS

Scores for most aspects of HRQL were similar in the two groups, and no statistically significant differences were found. Some general symptoms however showed clinically relevant improvement in the antireflux stent group, while esophageal-specific symptoms such as dysphagia seemed clinically better, and symptoms of reflux were clinically reduced in the conventional stent group but not in the antireflux stent group.

CONCLUSION

This study, although limited in size, provided no obvious support for using the antireflux stent in preference to the conventional stent in the palliation of distal esophageal or cardia cancer from an HRQL perspective.

[Self-expanding metal stents for palliation of malignant oesophageal obstruction]

BACKGROUND

Malignant oesophageal stenosis can be caused by cancer of the oesophagus, gastric cardia, lungs, mediastinum or, rarely, breast. Most of these cases are inoperable due to advanced stage of the disease, comorbidities or age of the patients; and palliative treatment can be applied only. The quality of life is mostly determined by the extent of dysphagia. Several methods are available to palliate dysphagia. Hereby, the authors review their results with palliation of malignant oesophageal obstruction applying self-expanding metal stents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

68 endoscopic stent implantations were performed in 64 patients (15 female and 49 male) with malignant dysphagia between 2003 and 2008. After radiological investigations, distally deployed covered stents with or without an antireflux valve were placed, depending on the localization of the tumour. In one patient with a stenosis localized in the upper third of the oesophagus a proximally deployed covered stent was used. The aim was to re-establish oral nutrition and cover possible fistulas.

RESULTS

Significant improvement of swallowing was detected in every patient. Average dysphagia score has improved from 3.2 to 1.7. Technical difficulties during stenting occurred in a relatively low percentage of patients only (2 in 68; i.e. 2.94%). Fistulas were covered in every case. Early stent migration (<7 days) happened in one case. One patient suffered non-fatal myocardial infarction two days after stent placement. In 5 cases tumour in- and overgrowth, in 4 cases bleeding was seen as late complications. Oesophago-tracheal fistula was noted in three patients after stent implantation. Late stent migration (>7 days) occurred in two patients. Re-stenting was necessary in four cases, while three patients needed an upper GI endoscopy for cleansing the stent caused by food obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data self-expanding metal stents are highly effective and safe for improving dysphagia. Stent-related complications are relatively rare. This method is highly recommended for palliation of malignant dysphagia.

Esophageal dysphagia

Esophageal dysphagia can arise from a variety of causes such as motility disorders, mechanical and inflammatory diseases. Adequate management includes a detailed history, evaluation with upper endoscopy, barium radiography and manometry. Treatment is usually tailored to the underlying disease process and in some cases, as in inoperable cancer, palliative management may be necessary.