Malignant Colonic Obstruction Research Articles

Research Perspective on Management Strategies for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Propensity Score Matching Studies.

Research Perspective on Management Strategies for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Propensity Score Matching Studies.

Malignant Acute Colonic Obstruction: Multidisciplinary Approach for Endoscopic Management.

Patients presenting with acute colonic obstruction are usually evaluated in the emergency department and multiple specialties are involved in the patients' management. Pre-treatment evaluation is essential in order to establish the correct endoscopic indication for stent implantation. Contrast-enhanced imaging could allow the exclusion of benign causes of colonic obstruction and evaluation of the length of malignant stricture. Endoscopic stenting is the gold standard of treatment for palliative indications whereas there are still concerns about its use as a bridge to surgery. Different meta-analyses showed that stenting as a bridge to surgery improves short-term surgical outcomes but has no role in improving long-term outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is also essential in patients that may be started on or are currently receiving antiangiogenic agents because endoscopic stenting may increase the risk of perforation. Evidence in the literature is weak and based on retrospective data. Here we report on how to correctly evaluate a patient with acute colonic malignant obstruction in collaboration with other essential specialists including a radiologist, surgeon and oncologist, and how to optimize the technique of endoscopic stenting.

Randomized non-inferiority single-center prospective trial of malignant colonic obstruction therapy with Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) endoscopic placement or stoma formation

Randomized non-inferiority single-center prospective trial of malignant colonic obstruction therapy with Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) endoscopic placement or stoma formation

Endoscopic stenting for malignant colonic obstruction: Where are we now?

Endoscopic stenting for malignant colonic obstruction: Where are we now?

Subtotal and Total Colectomy as a One-Stage Surgical Treatment for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction

Abstract Aim: We conducted this retrospective study in order to evaluate the short- and long-term results of Subtotal/Total Colectomy (STC/TC) and primary anastomosis for the treatment of occlusive left colon cancer. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from the medical records from general surgery clinic in January 2016 to June 2022 period. The study included patients diagnosed with acute colonic occlusion produced by tumor located from the splenic flexure to the rectosigmoid junction. Results: During the study period, 40 patients who underwent STC/TC and primary anastomosis were included in the study. According to the Clavien-Dindo grades, major complication rate was 17.5%. Seven patients (17.5%) had synchronous adenocarcinoma. Adenoma was detected in 11 of 40 patients, and 18.1% of them were reported as high-grade dysplasia. Besides, incidental low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm was reported in one patient. Ischemia and perforation of proximal colon was found in 28 cases (70%). No patient had anastomotic leak. After one year of surgery, the average defecation was two stools per day. Three-year OS was 92.3% in stage II and 68.7% in stage III. There was no survival more than three years in stage IV patients. The three-year overall disease- free survival was 90.6%. Conclusion: Treatment of obstructive left colon cancer using STC/TC and primary anastomosis is a confident method resulting in a good bowel function. The method allows the resection of synchronous tumors. Besides, it removes the proximal colon with ischemic lesions, serosal tears and filled with stool.

Similar success rate in proximal and distal colonic stent placement: a retrospective multi-center study

Objectives Stenting of malignant colon obstruction is used as a bridge to surgery or as an alternative to surgical colostomy in a palliative setting. Current guidelines recommend stent placement as the first line of treatment in colonic obstruction in both curative and palliative settings. However, it is unclear whether the location of the malignant obstruction influences the outcome of the stenting procedure. The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of colonic stents between proximal and distal colonic strictures with regard to technical and clinical success and the risk of adverse events. Methods A multi-center retrospective cohort was composed of patients who underwent a colonic stent placement at two tertiary hospitals between 2013 and 2021. The technical and clinical outcome, stent type used, duration of post-procedural hospital stay and complications were noted. Results A total of 148 patients who underwent colonic stenting were identified. 41 patients underwent stent placement in the proximal colon and 107 patients underwent a distal stent placement. There was no difference in technical success (100% vs 96.3%, p = 0.209), clinical success (97.0% vs 89.6%, p = 0.199) or complications (24.4% vs 37.4%, p = 0,135) Conclusion Technical success and clinical success rates are high and do not differ between stent locations. There is no significant difference in complication rates between proximal and distal colonic stents.

85 The SSSLOT study: Surgery, Stent (SEMS), Stoma for Left Obstructive colonic Tumours

Abstract Aim There is no clear consensus on the optimal management of obstructed left colonic malignancy. Although SEMS as a bridge to elective surgery is considered an alternative to primary surgery, comparisons of defunctioning stoma versus stent versus surgery has yet to be explored. This is a pilot study on the management of acute left malignant colonic obstruction (LMCO) in our trust. Methods This is a retrospective review of the management and outcomes of LMCO in our trust from 2019-2021. Results 19 patients were identified (72 y.o., M:F 10:9). T3:4 (8:11). 3 were rectal, 11 sigmoid, 4 were descending, and 1 transverse colon cancer. 7 had SEMS, 7 defunctioning stoma, and 5 emergency resection. All 7 cases of SEMS were clinically and technically successful. Mean time from SEMS to definitive surgery was 49.5 days with one case not leading to surgery. There was one 30-day complication reported which was not SEMS related; 3 year mortality (3YM) was 4/7. In the defunctioning stoma group, 2 did not proceed to surgery; 6 patients experienced complications; 3YM was 3/7. For the straight to surgery group, 5/14 of patients who had bridging-to-surgery procedure had neoadjuvant treatment; 4 complications were reported; 3YM was 1/6. Conclusion Although the results are limited by small numbers, a bridge-to-surgery technique is used approximately 3 times more frequently than emergency surgery, and neoadjuvant treatment is rarely employed. There would appear to be a lower 3YM with emergency surgery compared to the other interventions. Multicenter data collection will assess these preliminary findings.

Which treatment strategy is optimal for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction? A Bayesian meta-analysis.

This study aimed to determine the best treatment for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (ALMCO) among emergency surgery (ES), self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS), transanal drainage tube (TD), and decompressive stoma (DS). Articles that compared two or more treatments of ALMCO were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Network meta-analyses were performed to calculate the outcomes of primary anastomosis, stoma creation, morbidity, mortality, and 5-year survival. Fifty-one articles met inclusion criteria. TD was the optimal treatment in performing primary anastomosis [probability of ranking first (Pro-1) 0.96], while ES was the worst [probability of ranking fourth (Pro-4) 0.99]. More permanent stoma was formed in ES and TD groups than in SEMS and DS groups [OR (95%CI): TD vs SEMS: 4.12 (1.89, 9.45); TD vs DS: 3.39 (1.46, 8.75); ES vs DS: 2.55 (1.73, 4.17); SEMS vs ES: 0.33 (0.24, 0.42)]. More morbidity occurred in ES group than in SEMS group [OR (95%CI): ES vs SEMS: 1.44 (1.14, 1.82)]. Besides, SEMS was ranked first in avoiding infection (Pro-4 0.95). For in-hospital mortality, ES was ranked first (Pro-1 0.93). TD was ranked first in recurrence (Pro-1 0.97) and metastasis (Pro-1 0.98). There was no discrepancy in 5-year overall and disease-free survival among all strategies. SEMS as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation, and morbidity especially the infection rate with relatively great oncological outcomes. Therefore, SEMS should be recommended first for ALMCO in the medical center with experience and conditions.

5-year oncological outcomes in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: stent as bridge to surgery

BackgroundA considerable number of patients with colon cancer present with a colonic obstruction. The use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) as a bridge to surgery (BTS) in potential curative patients with left-sided colonic cancer obstruction remains debatable. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the 5-year oncological outcomes of using a SEMS as a BTS.MethodsAll patients with left-sided malignant colon obstruction who underwent curative surgery with no metastasis upon presentation between March 2009 and May 2013 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsA total of 45 patients were included, 28 patients underwent upfront surgery, and 17 patients had a stent as a bridge to surgery. T4 stage was statistically significantly higher in patients who had a SEMS as a BTS (35.3% vs. 10.7%) (p-value 0.043). The mean duration in days of the SEMS to surgery was 13.76 (SD 10.08). TNM stage 3 was a prognostic factor toward distant metastasis (HR 5.05). When comparing patients who had upfront surgery to those who had a SEMS as a BTS, higher 5-year disease-free survival (75% vs. 72%) and 5-year overall survival (89% vs. 82%) were seen in patients who had upfront surgery. However, both were statistically insignificant.ConclusionUsing self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery yields comparable 5-year survival and disease-free survival rates to upfront emergency surgery. The decision to use SEMS versus opting for emergency surgery should be made after careful patient selection and with the assistance of experienced endoscopists.Trial registrationN/A.

Acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: Is there a role for endoscopic stenting?

The therapy of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction continues to be one of the largest problems in clinical practice. Numerous studies on colonic stenting for neoplastic colonic obstruction have been reported in the last decades. Thereby the role of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in the treatment of malignant colonic obstruction has become better defined. However, numerous prospective and retrospective investigations have highlighted serious concerns about a possible worse outcome after endoscopic colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery, particularly in case of perforation. This review analyzes the most recent evidence in order to highlight pros and cons of SEMS placement in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

AB048. SOH23ABS_184. Management strategies for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised control trials and propensity score matching studies

AB048. SOH23ABS_184. Management strategies for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised control trials and propensity score matching studies

Outcomes of colon self-expandable metal stents for malignant vs benign indications at a tertiary care center and review of literature.

Endoscopic placement of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is a minimally invasive treatment for use in malignant and benign colonic obstruction. However, their widespread use is still limited with a nationwide analysis showing only 5.4% of patients with colon obstruction undergoing stent placement. This underutilization could be due to perceived increase risk of complications with stent placement. To review long- and short-term clinical success of SEMS use for colonic obstruction at our center. We retrospectively reviewed all the patients who underwent colonic SEMS placement over a eighteen year period (August 2004 through August 2022) at our academic center. Demographics including age, gender, indication (malignant and benign), technical success, clinical success, complications (perforation, stent migration), mortality, and outcomes were recorded. Sixty three patients underwent colon SEMS over an 18-year period. Fifty-five cases were for malignant indications, 8 were for benign conditions. The benign strictures included diverticular disease stricturing (n = 4), fistula closure (n = 2), extrinsic fibroid compression (n = 1), and ischemic stricture (n = 1). Forty-three of the malignant cases were due to intrinsic obstruction from primary or recurrent colon cancer; 12 were from extrinsic compression. Fifty-four strictures occurred on the left side, 3 occurred on the right and the rest in transverse colon. The total malignant case (n = 55) procedural success rate was 95% vs 100% for benign cases (P = 1.0, NS). Overall complication rate was significantly higher for benign group: Four complications were observed in the malignant group (stent migration, restenosis) vs 2 of 8 (25%) for benign obstruction (1-perforation, 1-stent migration) (P = 0.02). When stratifying complications of perforation and stent migration there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.14, NS). Colon SEMS remains a worthwhile option for colonic obstruction related to malignancy and has a high procedural and clinical success rate. Benign indications for SEMS placement appear to have similar success to malignant. While there appears to be a higher overall complication rate in benign cases, our study is limited by sample size. When evaluating for perforation alone there does not appear to be any significant difference between the two groups. SEMS placement may be a practical option for indications other that malignant obstruction. Interventional endoscopists should be aware and discuss the risk for complications in setting of benign conditions. Indications in these cases should be discussed in a multi-disciplinary fashion with colorectal surgery.

Self-expanding metal stents for the treatment of malignant colon obstruction from extra-colonic malignancy versus intra-colonic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The relative utility of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant colon obstruction (MCO) due to extra-colonic malignancy (ECM) versus intra-colonic malignancy (ICM) is understudied. A systematic search was done from inception-April 2021 to identify reports of safety and efficacy of SEMS insertion for the treatment of MCO-ECM versus MCO-ICM. A meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis to compute relative risks (RR), and mean differences (MD) was performed. Subgroup analyses and influence analyses were conducted. The certainty in estimates of effect(s) was assessed using the GRADE approach. Eight non-randomized studies were identified; 46% (39-53%) and 63% (59-67%) of patients in the ECM and ICM groups were male. Most obstructions were in the rectosigmoid colon in both ECM and ICM groups. SEMS insertion in MCO-ECM was associated with an increased risk of technical failure compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.92; 1.13-7.54; Certainty: Very Low). Risk of clinical failure of SEMS was higher in MCO-ECM compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.88; 1.58-2.52; Certainty: Very Low). The risk of clinical failure remained significant throughout the influence analysis, as well as on subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events or luminal perforation with SEMS insertion among patients with MCO-ECM and MCO-ICM. On influence analysis, removal of one study unveiled a significant increase in the risk of luminal perforation in MCO-ECM (RR 3.22; 1.44-7.19; p = 0.004). SEMS for MCO-ECM may have a technical success rate comparable to or questionably worse than MCO-ICM, with low certainty in estimate of effects. SEMS deployment in MCO-ECM carries a higher risk of clinical failure, with a questionably higher risk of luminal perforation.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided colocolostomy for malignant transverse colon obstruction after failure of enteral stenting.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided colocolostomy for malignant transverse colon obstruction after failure of enteral stenting.

Delaying surgery for optimization after colonic stent bridging is safe for left-sided malignant large bowel obstruction: Result from 10-year experience and risks factor analysis

AimTo evaluate the operative and oncological results after colonic stent bridging for left-sided malignant large bowel intestinal obstruction and the risk factors for survival and recurrence after definitive surgery. MethodologyConsecutive patients who underwent colonic stenting for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction were included. Patients for palliative stenting or emergency surgery, patient with low rectal tumour or peritoneal metastasis were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included stent success rate, stenting related complications, rate of stoma formation and long-term oncological outcome including recurrence rate and recurrence free survival rate. ResultsFrom June 2011 to June 2021, a total of 222 patients underwent colonic stenting. 112 patients were bridged to surgery after initial stenting, but 7 patients dropped out. Overall survival was 35 months (IQR = 17.75–75.25 months) in the early operation group, 30 months (IQR = 17.5–49.5 months) in the delayed surgery group HR 0.981 (95%CI 0.70–1.395, p = 0.907). Sensitivity analysis performed by excluding stent complications and emergency surgery yielded the same conclusion. Overall stenting complications rate was 17.1%. 11 patients (10.4%) required emergency surgery. ConclusionThere was no difference between early and delayed surgery groups (>4weeks) in the overall survival and recurrence in patients who had stent-bridge to surgery for malignant left colonic obstruction. It is safe to defer definitive surgery to optimize patients and allow better recovery from initial obstruction after colonic stenting before definitive surgery without adversely affecting the oncological outcomes.

A retrospective evaluation of short-term results from colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colonic obstruction

The efficacy and safety of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery to treat malignant colonic obstruction is debated. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with malignant colonic obstruction treated using different procedure. Subjects admitted to the authors’ department with colonic obstruction (n = 87) were studied. They underwent colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery (SEMS group: n = 14) or emergency surgery (ES group: n = 22).Their demographic characteristics, stoma rate, laparoscopy rate and postoperative complications were analyzed, and the potential risk factors of postoperative complications and the optimal time interval from SEMS implantation to elective surgery were explored. The stoma rate was 15.4% in the SEMS group versus 60.0% in the ES group (P = 0.015), and the postoperative complication rate was 7.7% in the SEMS group versus 40.0% in the ES group (P = 0.042). The proportion of patients undergoing laparoscopy in SEMS group was significantly higher than that in ES group (69.2% vs. 15.0%; P = 0.003).The effect of ASA grade on postoperative complications was statistically significant (OR = 24.565; P = 0.008). The Receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve could not determine the optimal time interval between SEMS implantation and elective surgery (AUC = 0.466). SEMS implantation has the advantages of lower temporary stoma rate, less postoperative complications and higher laparoscopy rate compared with ES in the treatment of left malignant intestinal obstruction. ASA grade is a risk factor for postoperative complications. However, larger sample size prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) are still needed to confirm long-term oncological outcomes.

Impact of endoscopic metallic stent placement and emergency surgery on detection of viable circulating tumor cells for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

BackgroundSelf-expanding metal stents (SEMS) served as a bridge to surgery (BTS). However, this method may be associated with worse long-term prognosis and relapse of CRC patients. Therefore, we attempted to clarify this in the angle of circulating tumor cells (CTCs).MethodsA multicenter study was performed from March 2018 to January 2021. Thirty-two colorectal cancer patients with obstruction were selected, of which 21 patients were performed SEMS as a BTS while 11 patients were performed emergency surgery. Bloods samples were collected in two groups of patients for further detecting CTCs. In the SEMS group, the samples were collected before and after stent insert and after radical surgery performed. In the ES group, the samples were collected before stent insert and after emergency surgery performed.ResultsThe number of CTCs did not show statistically significant differences before and after stent placement (34.90 vs 38.33, p=0.90), neither between the SEMS group and ES group in initial CTC levels (34.90 vs 58.09, p=0.394). No significant differences (38.33 vs 58.09, p=0.632) were observed after stent insert in the SMES group and the initial CTC levels in the ES group. Moreover, no major differences (24.17 vs 42.27, p=0.225) were observed after radical operation performed in both groups.ConclusionThe treatment of SEMS does not cause an increase in the number of CTC after stent insertion. Furthermore, there are may be other factors besides CTC to cause these poorer oncologic outcomes after SEMS placement.

Colonic stent for bridge to surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: A review of the literature after 2020

It has been found that 8%-29% of colorectal cancers are obstructive. The use of "stent as bridge to surgery" is one of the most debated topics in obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer management. The endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery (BTS) could turn an emergency surgery to an elective one, increasing the number of primary anastomoses instead of stoma and facilitating the laparoscopic approach instead of an open one. However, in recent years the possible risk of perforations and microperforations facilitating cancer spread related to the use of self-expanding metallic stent for BTS has been highlighted. Therefore, despite the useful short-term outcomes related to BTS, the recent literature has focused on long-term outcomes investigating the disease-free survival, the recurrence rate and the overall survival. Due to discordant data, international guidelines are still conflicting, and the debate is still open. There is not agreement about using self-expanding metallic stent for BTS as the gold standard.

Oncologic safety of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: Current evidence and prospects

Approximately 7%-29% of patients with colorectal cancer present with colonic obstruction. The concept of self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion as a bridge to surgery (BTS) is appealing. However, concerns on colonic stenting possibly impairing oncologic outcomes have been raised. This study aimed to review current evidence on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of SEMS insertion as BTS for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. For short-term outcomes, colonic stenting facilitates a laparoscopic approach, increases the likelihood of primary anastomosis without a stoma, and may decrease postoperative morbidity. However, SEMS-related perforation also increases local recurrence and impairs overall survival. Moreover, colonic stenting may cause negative oncologic outcomes even without perforation. SEMS can induce shear forces on the tumor, leading to increased circulating cancer cells and aggressive pathological characteristics, including perineural and lymphovascular invasion. The conflicting evidence has led to discordant guidelines. Well-designed collaborative studies that integrate both oncologic outcomes and data on basic research (e.g., alteration of circulating tumors) are needed to clarify the actual benefit of colonic stenting as BTS.

Outcomes of Palliative Colonic Stent Placement in Malignant Colonic Obstruction: Experience from a Tertiary Care Oncology Center in India

Abstract Introduction Colonic self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement is the preferred method for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction. We analyzed outcomes of patients who underwent colonic SEMS placement for palliation at a tertiary care oncology center in Western India. Methods Retrospective review of the endoscopy database was done for patients who underwent colonic SEMS placement at our center between January 2013 and September 2021. Demographic details, intent of stent placement, site of obstruction, length of stricture, technical success of stenting, clinical success, and complications (both immediate and long term) were noted. Results Sixty-one patients underwent colonic SEMS placement during the study period (mean age 53.6 years, 50.7% men). Obstruction was due to primary colonic malignancy in 43 (70.5%) patients and extracolonic malignancies in 18 (29.5%) patients. Most common extracolonic malignancy was gallbladder cancer in 8 (44.4%) patients. Most common site of obstruction was sigmoid colon in 18 (29.5%) patients. Proximal colonic obstruction was seen in 17 (27.9%) patients. Peritoneal metastases were seen in 26 (42.6%) patients. Colonoscopy revealed an impassable stenosis in 58 (95.1%) patients. Median length of stricture was 5 cm (range 2–9 cm). Technical success was achieved in 98.3% (60/61). Clinical success was achieved in 51 (86.4%) patients. Perforation during colonic SEMS placement was seen in 2 (3.4%) patients. Stent migration was seen in 3 (5.9%) patients, needing surgery for retrieval in all 3 patients. Over a median follow-up of 9 months (0–21 months), stent block was seen in 7 (13.7%) patients. Stent block developed after a median period of 6 months. Of these patients, three patients underwent SEMS placement within the SEMS and the other four patients underwent surgery. Conclusion Colonic SEMS placement achieves good palliation of malignant colonic obstruction in approximately 87% patients. Long-term complications like obstruction occur in a few patients after a median duration of 6 months.