The impact of prior radiotherapy on fatal complications after self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for malignant dysphagia due to esophageal carcinoma

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Placement for Malignant Esophageal Fistula

Patients with malignant esophageal fistulas often experience dysphagia and infection, resulting in poor prognoses. Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is a palliative treatment option; however, its efficacy and safety are unclear. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of SEMS placement for malignant esophageal fistulas. We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent SEMS placement for malignant esophageal fistulas between 2013 and 2022 at the Cancer Institute Hospital. Dysphagia scores (DSs) before and after SEMS placement, adverse events, and overall survival from SEMS placement until death were evaluated. A total of 17 patients underwent SEMS placement, including 12 and 5 patients with esophageal and lung cancers, respectively. Prior treatments included chemoradiotherapy (n = 11), radiotherapy (n = 4), and chemotherapy (n = 4); two patients underwent palliative radiotherapy after chemotherapy. All procedures were technically successful. After SEMS placement, 14 (82.4%) patients were able to consume semisolid or solid food (DS ≤ 2). Major adverse events were encountered in only one case. The median survival time after SEMS placement was 71 days (range 17-247 days). SEMS placement allowed most patients to resume oral intake with a low rate of major adverse events. SEMS placement is a reasonable palliative treatment option for patients with malignant fistulas who have poor prognoses.

Comparison of Short-term Outcomes Between Esophageal Bypass Surgery and Self-expanding Stent Insertion in Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis Using a Large-scale Inpatient Database

BACKGROUND

Advanced esophageal cancer is occasionally accompanied by difficulty swallowing owing to esophageal stenosis or tracheoesophageal fistula formation. Esophageal bypass surgery and stent insertion are considered feasible palliative management options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of these palliative treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient data were obtained from a large-scale inpatient database of 42 National University Hospitals in Japan. Patients with advanced esophageal cancer who underwent esophageal bypass surgery or stent insertion between April 2016 and March 2021 were included in this study. One-to-one propensity score matching of patients who underwent bypass surgery or stent insertion was performed. The primary outcomes were time to diet resumption and length of hospital stay after surgery. The secondary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In 43 propensity score-matched pairs, the incidence of postoperative respiratory complications was significantly higher in the bypass group than in the stent group (32.6% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.008). Postoperative length of hospital stay was longer in the bypass group than in the stent group (24 vs. 10 d, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that stent insertion was associated with a decreased risk of respiratory complications (odds ratio 0.077, P < 0.007). Among patients who underwent the interventions (bypass surgery or stent insertion) and subsequently underwent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy/radiotherapy) during hospitalization, the interval between the intervention and anticancer therapy was longer in the bypass group than in the stent group (25 vs. 7 d, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal stent insertion provides better short-term outcomes than bypass surgery in patients with advanced unresectable esophageal cancer.

Endoscopic Stenting for Malignant Dysphagia in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Malignant dysphagia is a common problem in patients with esophageal cancer. Endoscopic stenting can resolve dysphagia caused by malignant stricture; however, controversy exists regarding the use of esophageal stenting for the treatment of malignant stricture, including whether stenting or radiotherapy is superior, whether stenting before or after radiotherapy is safe, whether stenting before or after chemotherapy is safe, and whether low-radial-force stents are safer than conventional stents. Among treatment options for malignant dysphagia, stenting may have some disadvantages in terms of pain relief and the risk of adverse events compared with radiotherapy and in terms of survival compared with gastrostomy. Additionally, the risk of stent-related adverse events is significantly associated with prior radiotherapy. The risk of perforation is especially high when a radiation dose of >40 Gy is delivered to the esophagus after stenting, whereas perforation is not associated with prior chemotherapy or additional chemotherapy after stenting. Nevertheless, stenting remains an important palliative option, especially for patients with a short life expectancy and a strong desire for oral intake, because stenting can facilitate a more rapid improvement in dysphagia than radiotherapy or gastrostomy. The application of a low-radial-force stent should be considered to reduce the risk of adverse events, especially in patients with prior radiotherapy.

Optimal Management of Dysphagia in Patients with Inoperable Esophageal Cancer: Current Perspectives

The majority of patients with esophageal cancer are diagnosed at an advanced, incurable stage. Palliation of symptoms, specifically dysphagia, is a crucial component to improve quality of life and optimize nutritional status. Despite multiple available treatment modalities, there is not one accepted or recommended to be the preferred treatment option. Palliative management is often decided by a multidisciplinary team considering factors including local availability, preference, patient life expectancy, and symptom severity. Systemic therapies such as chemotherapy are the most commonly used palliative modalities. Oncologists are most familiar with radiation for dysphagia palliation, especially for advanced metastatic cancer patients with good performance status. One common approach used by endoscopist is self-expandable metal stents. This is preferred for patients with short-term survival and poor functional status as it provides rapid relief of dysphagia. Cryotherapy is a relatively new endoscopic ablative modality and appears to be a promising option for dysphagia palliation, but more data is needed for wider adoption. This review summarizes the current literature on endoscopic and non-endoscopic treatment options for malignant dysphagia.

Plastic or self-expandable metal stent: Which is the most suitable for patients with pancreatic head cancer in the upcoming era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy? A review

Obstructive jaundice is a major symptom of pancreatic head cancer, and although its amelioration is required before scheduling chemotherapy, the decision to perform biliary drainage for resectable pancreatic cancer has remained controversial. In recent years, the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer has been reported. Preoperative biliary drainage has become increasingly necessary, making the choice of stent an important one; thus, the longer the waiting period extends through neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the more durable stents - such as self-expandable metallic stents, rather than plastic stents - would be desired as an option. Still, there is insufficient evidence regarding surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis, and further confirmatory studies are needed. Through this review, we aim to provide an update on the characteristics of biliary stents and preoperative biliary drainage for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

MALIGNANT DISEASE

1: ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

BENIGN DISEASE

5: ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Esophageal metal stent for malignant obstruction after prior radiotherapy

The association between severe adverse events (SAEs) and prior radiotherapy or stent type remains controversial. Patients with esophageal or esophagogastric junctional cancer who underwent stent placement (2005–2019) were enrolled in this retrospective study conducted at a tertiary cancer institute in Japan. The exclusion criteria were follow-up period of < 1 month and insufficient data on stent type or cancer characteristics. We used Mann–Whitney’s U test for quantitative data and Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Multivariate analysis was performed using a logistic regression model. 107 stents were placed. Low radial-force stents (L group) were used in 51 procedures and high radial-force stents (H group) in 56 procedures. SAEs developed after nine procedures, the median interval from stent placement being 6 days (range, 1–141 days). SAEs occurred more frequently in the H (14%: 8/56) than in the L group (2%: 1/51) (P = 0.03). In patients who had undergone prior radiotherapy, SAEs were more frequent in the H (36%: 4/11) than in the L group (0%: 0/13) (P = 0.03). Re-obstruction and migration occurred after 16 and three procedures, respectively; these rates did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.59, P = 1, respectively). Low radial-force stents may reduce the risk of SAEs after esophageal stenting.

Outcomes of esophageal bypass surgery and self-expanding metallic stent insertion in esophageal cancer: reevaluation of bypass surgery as an alternative treatment

PURPOSE

Advanced esophageal cancer often results in esophageal stenosis or tracheoesophageal fistula. Esophageal bypass surgery and esophageal stent insertion are palliative treatments for esophageal cancer. With improvements in metallic stents and the stent insertion technique, esophageal stent insertion appears to be performed more frequently than bypass surgery, worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of bypass surgery and stent insertion in our hospital and reevaluate which patients would benefit from bypass surgery.

METHODS

A total of 70 esophageal cancer patients who could not tolerate oral feeding due to esophageal stenosis or tracheoesophageal fistula underwent palliative treatment [esophageal bypass surgery (N = 34) and esophageal stent insertion (N = 36)] at Kumamoto University. We retrospectively investigated the clinicopathological factors, postoperative outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

Both treatments could significantly improve the amount of food intake and the dietary form (P < 0.01). The length of hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.01) and complications associated with treatment were reduced in the stent group (P = 0.03). The overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (log rank P = 0.22). Importantly, in the bypass surgery group, the patients who received postoperative treatment had a better prognosis than those who did not receive postoperative treatment (log rank P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Both bypass surgery and stent insertion allowed oral intake in patients who could not tolerate oral feeding because of esophageal stenosis or tracheoesophageal fistula. Considering that patients who undergo stent insertion have a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications, stent insertion may be a better first choice for treatment than bypass surgery. However, bypass surgery may be an option for patients who can tolerate postoperative treatment.

Comparison of definitive chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone in patients older than 75 years with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and acute toxicity of definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and radiotherapy (RT) alone as initial treatment in patients aged 75 years and older with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who are not eligible for surgery.Between February 2009 and February 2015, 122 patients older than 75 years with locally advanced ESCC were retrospectively reviewed, in whom 52 patients allocated to the CRT group were treated with at least 2 cycles of platinum and 5-fluorouracil, 70 patients allocated to the RT group were treated with RT alone, all patients were received a total radiation dose of 54-66 Gy, with 1.8 or 2-Gy/fraction. Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and acute toxicities were compared between the 2 different treatment groups.In the CRT group, the median PFS and OS were 15.3 and 24.6 months, while 10.6 and 19.4 months in the RT group (P = .008 and P = .018). The 1-year survival rates of the 2 groups were 78.8% versus 64.3% (P = .081), and the 2-year survival rates were 48.1% and 30.0% (P = .042), respectively. The objective RR was 55.8% in the CRT group with 18 complete response (CR) and 18.6% in the RT group with 13 CR. Acute toxicity in the CRT group was higher than in the RT group, especially the grade 3 to 4 acute toxicities.Compared with RT alone, definitive CRT in the treatment of locally advanced ESCC can prolong the survival time in elderly patients. Definitive CRT should be considered the first-treatment choice for elderly patients like the younger patients who are not eligible for surgery.

Comparison of Efficacy of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Placement in the Unresectable Esophageal Cancer Patients

This is a retrospective study to evaluate the prevention of complications of metallic stent placement in patients with unresectable advanced esophageal cancer. A total of 87 patients were treated with 4 types of metal stents in the esophagus over a period of 18 years. Stent placement was technically successful. The most common prior treatment was chemoradiotherapy. There were no significant differences in the rate of patients with no complications among the prior treatments. Approximately, 30% of patients had the most common chest pain in complications. Stent placement within one month after the completion of chemoradiotherapy should be avoided for the prevention of the chest pain. There was no significant difference in the rate of patients with no complications by lesion location. The rate of no complications was higher for the Niti-S stent than the Gianturco Z-stent or Ultraflex stent. Of note, no complications were noted for the Niti-S ultrathin stent at all. Among cases of stent-related death, the most common type of complication was respiratory disorder caused by the stent that seems to be thick and hard. Therefore, the stent with thin and flexible characteristics like the Niti-S ultrathin stent will solve the various problems of esophageal stent placement.

Stenting as a palliative method in the management of advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction

Advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus and gastroesophageal junction usually requires palliative treatment, and the method of choice is stenting. There are several types of stents currently available, including: self-expandable metallic stents (fully or partially covered); self-expandable plastic stents; biodegradable stents. Each of the mentioned stents has its advantages and limitations, and requires a proper, patient-tailored selection. Due to the close anatomical relationship between the oesophagus and bronchial tree, some patients may require bilateral stenting. Oesophageal stenting may not only be considered as a palliative procedure, but can also be implemented to alleviate dysphagia during preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

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.

Measuring relief of dysphagia in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma patients submitted to high-dose-rate brachytherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Esophageal neoplasm has a poor prognosis, and palliative care remains an important goal of treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) to improve dysphagia in 115 patients treated at our institution.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients previously submitted to external beam radiotherapy that at least, 1 month after, presented with residual disease and persistent dysphagia, were given HDRB as palliative treatment. Patients with tumors extending to the level of cardia and those with cervical esophageal lesions were also eligible. HDRB consisted of three fractions of 500 cGy given weekly. Dysphagia was assessed using a food texture-based scale classified according to the type of food patients were able to swallow (absent, solid, pasty, or liquid). At the end of treatment, a single-category shift in dysphagia classification was scored as +1 (e.g., liquid to pasty) or -1 (e.g., solid to pasty), and a dual-category shift was scored as +2 (e.g., liquid to solid) or -2 (e.g., absent to pasty).

RESULTS

Most patients (51.1%) had improvement of dysphagia, and 55.3% of this group experienced one-point improvement. Procedural complications included stricture (38.2%), bleeding (7%), and fistula (8.7%). In the present study, 13 patients with cervical esophageal lesions underwent HDRB without fistula formation.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal HDRB effectively reduces dysphagia. Tumor location was not related to development of complications.

Esophageal perforation during or after conformal radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma

The aim of this study was to analyze the risk factors and prognosis for patients with esophageal perforation occurring during or after radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma. We retrospectively analyzed 322 patients with esophageal carcinoma. These patients received radiotherapy for unresectable esophageal tumors, residual tumors after operation, or local recurrence. Of these, 12 had radiotherapy to the esophagus before being admitted, 68 patients had concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT), and 18 patients had esophageal perforation after RT (5.8%). Covered self-expandable metallic stents were placed in 11 patients. Two patients continued RT after stenting and control of infection; one of these suffered a new perforation, and the other had a massive hemorrhage. The median overall survival was 2 months (0-3 months) compared with 17 months in the non-perforation group. In univariate analysis, the Karnofsky performance status (KPS) being ≤ 70, age younger than 60, T4 stage, a second course of radiotherapy to the esophagus, extracapsular lymph nodes (LN) involving the esophagus, a total dose >100 Gy (biologically effective dose-10), and CRT were risk factors for perforation. In multivariate analysis, age younger than 60, extracapsular LN involving the esophagus, T4 stage, and a second course of radiotherapy to the esophagus were risk factors. In conclusion, patients with T4 stage, extracapsular LN involving the esophagus, and those receiving a second course of RT should be given particular care to avoid perforation. The prognosis after perforation was poor.

Covered self-expandable metal stent deployment promises safe neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer (BRPHC) have been treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NACRT) using metallic stents. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications of covered self-expanding metallic stents (CSEMS) during the NACRT and surgical period.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the outcomes of patients with BRPHC, then divided them chronologically into three groups as follows. Group A: upfront surgery with plastic stent (PS) deployment; group B: PS deployment plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and/or NACRT; group C: CSEMS deployment plus NAC/NACRT. Patients were categorized as borderline resectable based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines, 2010. Days to reintervention (DR), reintervention rate, and the rate of R0 and complications were studied. Safe margin-negative resection (R0) surgery was defined as R0 surgery without reintervention during the NACRT period and no postoperative complications.

RESULTS

DR were as follows. Groups A, B and C were 32, 55 and 97 days, respectively (P < 0.05). R0 surgery obtained in groups A, B and C was 53% (9/17), 100% (17/17) and 93% (14/15), respectively. CSEMS did not interfere with surgery. Safe R0 surgery obtained in groups B and C was 11% (2/19) and 67% (10/15), respectively (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that the odds ratio for safe R0 surgery was 16.210 (95% CI 2.457-106.962, P = 0.003) for CSEMS placement.

CONCLUSION

CSEMS should be considered to relieve symptomatic biliary obstruction in patients with BRPHC receiving NACRT in view of the high attainability rate of safe R0 surgery compared to that with PS deployment.