Colorectal stenting for palliation and as a bridge to surgery: A 5-year follow-up study

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Short-term outcomes of stents in obstructive rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With acute obstruction due to rectal or recto-sigmoid cancer, the safety and success of deploying self-expandable metal stents has been controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing evidence on the outcomes and complication rates of stent placement in these patients.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of PubMed by using appropriate keywords, and manual reference screening of included articles was done. The article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment was done by four independent reviewers. A meta analyses was performed for the main outcome measures: technical and clinical success and complication rates.

RESULTS

We identified 962 articles in the search. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 32 articles in the meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate across 26 studies that reported it was 97% [95% confidence interval (CI): 95%-99%] without evidence of significant heterogeneity (I² = 0.0%, P = 0.84), and the clinical success rate across 26 studies that reported it was 69% (95% CI: 58%-79%) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (I² = 81.7%, P < 0.001). The pooled overall complication rate across the 32 studies was 28% (95% CI: 20%-37%) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (I² = 79.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of rectal stents in obstructing rectal or recto-sigmoid tumors seems to be technically feasible. A high rate of technical success, however, does not always translate into clinical success. A considerable complication rate is associated with this approach. Randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the outcomes of rectal stent placement with those of surgery.

Biopsy sampling during self-expandable metallic stent placement in acute malignant colorectal obstruction: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Histopathology is a crucial part of diagnosis and treatment guidance of colorectal cancer. In Denmark, it is not routine to biopsy during self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement as a treatment option for acute colorectal obstruction of unknown etiology. This is due to lack of knowledge about the risks of hemorrhage, and thus the risk to aggravate the deteriorating overview conditions. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether there is evidence to avoid biopsy sampling during acute SEMS placement.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Studies were included if they described biopsy sampling in relation to SEMS placement. Additionally, national and international guidelines were scrutinized on Google and by visiting the websites of national and international gastrointestinal societies.

RESULTS

In total, 43 studies were included in the review. Among these, one recommended biopsy during SEMS placement, three advised against biopsy, 23 just reported biopsy was performed during the procedure, and 16 reported biopsy before or after the procedure, or the timing was not specified. Among the 12 included guidelines, only two described biopsy during SEMS placement.

CONCLUSION

The literature on the subject is limited. In 24 of the 43 included studies, biopsy sampling was done during SEMS placement without reporting a decrease in the technical success rate. The included guidelines were characterized by a general lack of description of whether biopsy during SEMS placement should be performed or not. Prospective studies are needed in order to establish the real risk of hemorrhage, if any, when a biopsy is obtained.

Performance Status Is a Predictive Factor of Improvement after Colonic Stenting in Patients with Malignant Stenosis due to Extraparenteral Malignant Tumors

Endoscopic stenting with self-expandable metallic stents is widely accepted for the treatment of malignant colorectal obstruction. Generally, stenting is performed as a bridge-to-surgery for primary colorectal cancer (CRC). Furthermore, palliative colonic stenting is performed for extraparenteral malignant tumors (EPMTs). However, predictive factors for improving clinical outcomes after colonic stenting for EPMTs remain unclear. This study is aimed at evaluating patients with EPMTs who underwent colonic stenting and investigating factors influencing clinical improvement after the stenting procedure. Twenty-one patients with colorectal obstruction by EPMTs were treated using self-expandable metallic stents over a period of 8 years. We divided the enrolled patients into the clinically improved and nonimproved groups after colonic stenting. Variables, including age; sex; type of primary cancer; serum albumin level; location of the obstruction; stent type, length, and diameter; prior chemotherapy treatment; ascites; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS); technical and clinical success rates; stent-related adverse events; and mortality rates, were evaluated. Technical failure was not observed in all cases. Clinical success, defined as the passage of stool and improvement in the colorectal obstruction scoring system (CROSS) without adverse events, was observed in the 14 patients. Univariate analyses revealed no significant differences in factors other than PS before stenting (P = 0.04) between the improved and nonimproved groups. Colonic stenting for EPMTs was effective. PS may be an independent risk factor of clinical outcomes after stenting.

Stenting as a bridge to surgery for obstructed stage IV colorectal cancers - long-term outcomes of a 10-year study

INTRODUCTION

Successful stenting of an obstructing colorectal tumor can avert upfront emergency surgery in malnourished obstructed patients with metastatic disease and poor physiological condition. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of stenting followed by primary colorectal tumor resection among patients with obstructed stage IV colorectal cancer at presentation, over a 10-year period.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2016, a cohort comprising 25 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. The durability of palliation of bowel obstruction, oncological outcomes and factors influencing overall survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

No re-interventions were required for bowel obstruction during the study period. The overall perioperative morbidity rate was 16%, with no postoperative 90-day mortality. Laparoscopic resection rate was 52% and stoma formation rate was 8%. The median overall survival was 24 months for the entire cohort, and the 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 80%, 35% and 23.33% respectively. More than one site of distant metastases, peritoneal involvement, and elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels were significantly associated with poorer survival outcomes. Patients with peritoneal-only metastasis had worse outcomes, with a median survival of 7 months and no patients surviving beyond 18 months.

CONCLUSION

Stenting followed by resection of the primary obstructing colorectal cancer provides durable palliation among patients with stage IV disease, with low perioperative morbidity and stoma formation rates. Superior survival was observed among patients with single-site, non-peritoneal distant metastases.

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

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

Endoscopic stenting of malignant, benign and iatrogenic colorectal disorders: a primer for radiologists

In recent years, endoscopic placement of intraluminal stents is increasingly used to manage a widening range of colorectal disorders. Self-expanding metal stents represent an established alternative to surgery for the palliation of unresectable carcinomas and currently allow a "bridge-to-surgery" strategy to relieve large bowel obstruction and optimise the patients' clinical conditions before elective oncologic resection. Additionally, intraluminal stents represent an appealing option to manage obstructing extracolonic tumours and selected patients with benign conditions such as refractory anastomotic strictures and post-surgical leaks.This educational paper reviews the technical features and current indications of colorectal stenting and presents the expected and abnormal radiographic, CT and MRI appearances observed during the endoscopic management of malignant, benign and iatrogenic colonic disorders with stents. The aim is to provide radiologists with a thorough familiarity with stent-related issues, which is crucial for appropriate reconstruction of focused CT images, correct interpretation of early post-procedural studies and elucidation of stent-related complications such as misplacement, haemorrhage, perforation, migration and re-obstruction.

Comparative outcomes between palliative ileostomy and colostomy in patients with malignant large bowel obstruction

Objectives: Palliative stoma creation should be considered in patients at high risk of colonic metallic stent failure. However, it is unclear whether ileostomy or colostomy is superior. This study compared short-term outcomes between palliative ileostomy and colostomy. Methods: We identified 82 patients with malignant large bowel obstruction, caused by various advanced cancers, between January 2005 and December 2016. We compared short-term outcomes between the ileostomy group (n = 33) and the colostomy group (n = 49). Results: For all 82 patients, clinical success was achieved. Three patients with ileostomy died within 30 days of ostomy formation. The ileostomy group had statistically significant differences in median operative time (113 vs. 129 minutes, p = 0.045) and blood loss (8 vs. 40 g, p = 0.037) in comparison with the colostomy group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the surgical complications (30.3 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.431), in the median period to oral intake (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.335) and in the hospital stay after surgery (32 vs. 27 days, p = 0.509) between the two groups. Overall stoma-related complications occurred in 27 (32.9%) patients. Stoma-related complications occurred more frequently in the ileostomy group (16/33 vs. 11/49 patients, p = 0.014). High output stoma (6 patients) and irritation (5 patients) occurred more frequently in the ileostomy group. Conclusions: Palliative colostomy is superior to ileostomy due to fewer stoma-related complications. When ileostomy is required, aggressive interventions for high output stomas should be implemented.

Ten-year survival after endoscopic stent placement as a bridge to surgery in obstructing colon cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expandable metal stents are used increasingly in the treatment of obstructing colorectal cancer (CRC). Although endoscopic colon stenting is widely accepted in palliation, disagreement exists about its role in a curative setting. This study aims to describe long-term survival data in a large patient group treated with colon stenting as a bridge to surgery for CRC.

METHODS

This prospective study included 97 patients who presented in a Belgian hospital between 1998 and 2013 with obstructing, although potentially curable, CRC. All patients underwent endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery. Procedure-related adverse events and long-term follow-up data were retrospectively collected and compared with the CRC mortality in Belgium in the same time span.

RESULTS

Overall survival in this observational cohort did not differ significantly from survival in all Belgian patients with CRC in the same period (P = .14). One-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival rates were similar in both groups (95.9% vs 79.0%; 54.7% vs 51.2%; 41.0% vs 35.6%, respectively). The technical success rate was 94.8%. Seventy-three patients did not experience any adverse event. Stent migration occurred in 9 patients, whereas micro-perforations and macro-perforations were observed in 14 patients, without influence on survival. Incidence rates of peritoneal metastases did not differ between patients with and without any type of perforation (22.2% vs 15.2%, respectively; P = .47). The type of stent influenced the overall adverse event risk, mainly driven by a significant increase in stent migration in case of Wallstent enteral (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Mass).

CONCLUSIONS

Colon stenting before surgery is effective and did not worsen the survival outcome in patients with obstructing CRC who were treated with curative intent, which affirms the role for stenting as a bridge to surgery.