Efficacy and safety of chemotherapy after endoscopic double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstructions in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a single-institution retrospective analysis

Outcomes after partially covered self-expandable metal stent placement for recurrent duodenal obstruction

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of partially covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) as an additional stent after recurrent duodenal obstruction (RDO) have not been elucidated. In this study, we compared outcomes of partially covered and uncovered SEMS placement after RDO in patients with malignant duodenal obstruction and explored factors affecting re-recurrent obstruction and overall survival in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients undergoing SEMS placement for RDO at a cancer institute in Japan from July 2014 to June 2021. Clinical variables and outcomes of patients undergoing partially covered and uncovered SEMS placement were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients underwent SEMS placement after RDO, for which the COMVI stent was used in 38 cases and uncovered stents were used in 23 cases. Stent ingrowth was the most common cause of RDO (51.4%). Stent migration only occurred after partially covered stent placement (20% vs. 0%, p = 0.018). Choice of SEMS had no impact on time to re-RDO (median 2.8 vs. 4.1 months, p = 0.776) or overall survival (median 2.6 vs. 2.4 months, p = 0.703). Median overall survival was longer in patients receiving chemotherapy after second stenting (4.6 vs. 1.8 months, p < 0.001) and shorter in those with early RDO, regardless of the SEMS used. Use of the partially covered stent had no impact on survival or time to RDO.

CONCLUSIONS

While outcomes after partially covered SEMS placement for RDO were not significantly different from uncovered SEMS, migration remains a concern when they are used as a second stent. Chemotherapy after second stenting was associated with longer overall survival but not with longer time to re-RDO.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic double stenting using an anti-reflux metal stent for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate long-term outcomes of endoscopic double stenting using anti-reflux metal stents (ARMS) for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who received endoscopic double stenting with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction at our institution between July 2014 and March 2021 were evaluated. Patients were divided into the ARMS group, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) group, and covered metal stent-transpapillary (CMS-transpapillary) group. A Duckbill-type metal stent was used in all ARMS cases.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were enrolled: ARMS group (n = 16), EUS-HGS group (n = 13), and CMS-transpapillary group (n = 9). Overall survival among three groups were not significantly different. Recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rates of the ARMS, EUS-HGS, and CMS-transpapillary groups were 12.5%, 61.5%, and 88.9% (P < .01) and median time to recurrent biliary obstructions (TRBOs) were not reached, 125 days, and 7 days (P < .01). Median TRBOs of ARMS-choledochoduodenostomy and ARMS-transpapillary were not statistically different. Major causes of RBO were stent occlusion and symptomatic stent migration in the ARMS group, hyperplasia in the EUS-HGS group, and non-occlusion cholangitis in the CMS-transpapillary group.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic double stenting with ARMS might be an option for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary interventions

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), even in expert hands, may fail in 5-10% of cases, especially in cases of papillary infiltration, malignant gastric outlet obstruction, or surgically altered anatomy. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has represented the traditional rescue therapy, despite associated with high rate of adverse events, need for re-interventions and an inferior quality of life. The evolution of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic tool offers an effective and safe alternative for internal biliary drainage (BD) into the stomach or the duodenum. EUS-BD is reported to have similar or even improved efficacy and increased safety when compared to PTBD and can be performed in the same session of a failed ERCP. This review summarizes technical aspects of intra-hepatic and extra-hepatic EUS-BD (including hepatico-gastrostomy, choledocho-duodenostomy and rendezvous) together with current evidence and future perspectives that steadily cements EUS-BD's place in multidisciplinary management of bilio-pancreatic diseases.

How to successfully administer palliative treatment with a stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction?

Although endoscopic stenting (ES) has been widely used as a less-invasive palliation method for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), recent reports have highlighted issues related to the procedure. For successful treatment, various aspects must be assessed before considering the practices. First, it is necessary to eliminate cases with contraindications such as coexistence of distal small-bowel obstruction or perforation. Other factors potentially related to clinical failure (i.e., peritoneal carcinomatosis) may require consideration but remain controversial. ES has better short-term outcomes than surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ). GJ has recently been considered preferable in cases with longer life expectancy because of superior sustainability. Various types of stents are now commercially available, but their ideal structure and mechanical properties have not yet been clarified. Covered metal stent may reduce stent obstruction but is prone to increase stent migration, and its significance remains uncertain. Subsequent chemotherapy after stenting should be considered, as it is expected to prolong patient survival without increasing the risk of adverse events. Furthermore, it may be helpful in preventing tumor ingrowth. In cases with GOO combined with biliary obstruction, biliary intervention is often difficult. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been widely used as an alternative procedure for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage (ETBD). Despite the lack of consensus as to whether ETBD or EUS-BD is preferred, EUS-BD is useful as a salvage technique for cases where ETBD is difficult. To perform stent placement successfully, it is important to pay attention to the above points; however, many remaining issues need to be clarified in the future.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

1:  ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic duodenal stent placement versus gastrojejunostomy for unresectable pancreatic cancer patients with duodenal stenosis before introduction of initial chemotherapy (GASPACHO study): a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic duodenal stent placement is an alternative technique to gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction due to pancreatic cancer. We compared the efficacy of endoscopic duodenal stent placement with that of gastrojejunostomy for treating patients with pancreatic cancer who are candidates for intensive combination chemotherapies as the first line of treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included 100 patients from 18 institutions in Japan. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) cytologically or histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, (2) good performance status, (3) gastric outlet obstruction scoring system score of 0-1 and (4) no history of treatment for pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the background characteristics of patients in the endoscopic duodenal stent placement (n = 57) and gastrojejunostomy (n = 43) groups. The median overall survival in the endoscopic duodenal stent placement and gastrojejunostomy groups was 5.9 and 6.0 months, respectively. Clinical success was achieved in 93 cases; the median time to food intake resumption was significantly shorter in the endoscopic duodenal stent placement group (median: 3 days, n = 54) than in the gastrojejunostomy group (median: 5 days, n = 43). Chemotherapy was introduced in 63% of the patients in both groups after endoscopic duodenal stent placement or gastrojejunostomy. Chemotherapy was started earlier in the endoscopic duodenal stent placement group (median: 14 days) than in the gastrojejunostomy (median: 32 days) group.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic duodenal stent placement showed similar or better clinical outcomes than gastrojejunostomy. Thus, it might be a promising option in patients with good performance status.

Endoscopic Double Stenting for the Management of Combined Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction

Periampullary cancers are often diagnosed at advanced stages and can cause both biliary and duodenal obstruction. As these two obstructions reduce patients’ performance status and quality of life, appropriate management of the disease is important. Combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction is classified according to the location and timing of the duodenal obstruction, which also affect treatment options. Traditionally, surgical bypass (gastrojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy) has been performed for the treatment of unresectable periampullary cancer. However, it has recently been substituted by less invasive endoscopic procedures due to its high morbidity and mortality. Thus, endoscopic double stenting (transpapillary stenting and enteral stenting) has become the current standard of care. Limitations of transpapillary stenting include its technical difficulty and the risk of duodenal-biliary reflux. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedures have emerged as a novel platform and have been increasingly utilized in the management of biliary and duodenal obstruction. As the prognosis of periampullary cancer has improved due to recent advances in chemotherapy, treatment strategies for biliary and duodenal obstruction are becoming more important. In this article, we review the treatment strategies for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction based on the latest evidence.