7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      To Stent or Not to Stent in Colorectal Cancer: That is Still the Question in Gastroenterology! Translated title: Colocar ou Não Próteses no Cancro Colo-Rectal: Continua a ser a Questão em Gastrenterologia!

      brief-report
      a , * , b
      GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology
      Karger Publishers

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, and although there is growing concern about screening and prevention, 10–15% of the cases still present with obstruction. 1 The management of these cases is difficult and there is ongoing debate about the best standard of care for these patients. Surgery is the traditional option but the use of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) has been reported in malignant colonic obstruction, either for palliation or as a bridge-to-surgery in patients with potentially curable colon cancer. The most recently published guidelines considered stents as the preferential treatment for palliation of obstructive colorectal cancer when feasible. 1 On the other hand, about the issue of stents as a bridge-to-surgery they recommended against the use of SEMS as a standard treatment, considering emergent surgery as the first therapeutic option. According to these guidelines, SEMS as a bridge to surgery would be reserved for those patients with higher risk of post-operative mortality (ASA ≥III and/or age >70 years). 1 The rationale behind these recommendations comes mainly from three randomized controlled trials (RCT), comparing SEMS as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructive colon cancer.2, 3, 4 In these three RCTs, with small number of patients in the stent arms (15–26), the disease recurrence rates were higher in the SEMS groups and even higher in those patients who experienced tumor perforation. Although one meta-analysis 5 of seven RCTs comparing these two groups revealed lower overall morbidity, higher successful primary anastomosis rate and lower permanent stoma rate in the SEMS group; and none of the RCT showed differences in overall survival between the groups, the apparent oncological risks of SEMS made them unsuitable for first-line treatment when emergent surgery is an option. But is real life practice comparable to a randomized controlled trial? How should we interpret these results and these recommendations? As recommendations, we would say. Because in real life scenarios we have to take several factors into account such as local availability and expertise for both techniques, costs, patients’ preferences and comorbidities as well as questions related to quality of life. In this issue of the journal, two groups of authors present the results of their retrospective analysis comparing the outcomes of SEMS as a bridge to surgery versus emergent surgery in large bowel malignant obstruction. Ribeiro et al. 6 evaluated 42 patients with potentially curable colorectal cancer admitted with left-sided colonic obstruction who underwent the above mentioned procedures. Their objective was to compare the outcomes considering primary anastomosis and stoma rates, total hospital stay, overall survival and recurrence-free survival. They found no statistically significant differences in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the groups, but a significant higher primary anastomosis rate (85.1% vs 20%) and lower stoma rate (25.% vs 86.7%) in the SEMS group (27 patients). Fernandes et al. 7 included patients with malignant colonic obstruction irrespective of the site of obstruction, and compared not only those two groups with curative intent (101 patients) but also two groups of palliative patients (71) submitted either to SEMS for palliation or to decompressive surgery. In the curative-intent groups they found statistically significant differences favoring the SEMS group: higher primary anastomosis rate (93.8% vs 76.4%), lower stoma rate (25.7% vs 54.9%) and lower overall mortality (31.3% vs 56.7%). Interestingly, in the palliative groups, these authors did not find significant advantage of SEMS over decompressive surgery, because of longer hospital stay and reintervention rates, once again contradicting the guidelines. However, the group did not evaluate the aspects related to quality of life which could favor SEMS in this setting, as reported by Nagula et al. 8 and Young et al. 9 Moreover, the definition of clinical success was distinct from other studies that evaluated SEMS for palliation and this may have worsened their results. These two observational studies resemble the real-life practice and despite the differences between them and the eventual weaknesses of retrospective analysis they both seem to support that maybe there is still a role for SEMS as a bridge to surgery in patients other than those with high risk for emergent surgery. Moreover, for palliation the observational study of Fernandes et al. 7 suggests that colostomy may have advantages over stents. Taken altogether it really looks that these recent guidelines are not the end of the story concerning the role of stents in colorectal cancer. Science is a constantly work-in-progress and in this matter more studies are needed to clarify these controversies, certainly taking into account the aspects related to patients’ quality of life and comorbidities in order to help us make better decisions for our patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prospective, controlled, randomized study of intraoperative colonic lavage versus stent placement in obstructive left-sided colonic cancer.

          The main aim of this study was to compare short-term results and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent intraoperative colonic lavage (IOCL) with primary anastomosis with those who had stent placement prior to scheduled surgery for obstructive left-sided colonic cancer (OLCC). We conducted a prospective, controlled, randomized study of patients diagnosed with OLCC. Patients were divided into two groups: stent and deferred surgery (group 1) and emergency IOCL (group 2). Demographic variables, risk prediction models, postoperative morbidity and mortality, staging, complications due to stent placement, surgical time, clinical follow-up, health costs, and follow-up of survival were recorded. Twenty-eight patients (15 group 1 and 13 group 1) were enrolled. The study was suspended upon detecting excess morbidity in group 2. The two groups were homogeneous in clinical and demographic terms. Overall morbidity in group 1 was 2/15 (13.3%) compared with 7/13 (53.8%) in group 2 (p = 0.042). None of the 15 patients in group 1 presented anastomotic dehiscence compared with 4/13 (30.7%) in group 2 (p = 0.035). Surgical site infection was detected in 2 (13.3%) patients in group 1 and in 6 (46.1%) in group 2 (p = 0.096). Postoperative stay was 8 days (IQR 3, group 1) and 10 days (IQR 10, group 2) (p = 0.05). The mean follow-up period was 37.6 months (SD = 16.08) with no differences in survival between the groups. In our setting, the use of a stent and scheduled surgery is safer than IOCL and is associated with lower morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and equally good long-term survival.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preoperative colonic stents versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis.

            The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Endo-laparoscopic approach versus conventional open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: long-term follow-up of a randomized trial.

              We previously conducted a randomized trial comparing the endo-laparoscopic approach (i.e. placing self-expanding metallic stents followed by laparoscopic resection) and conventional open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer. This study is a follow-up of the previous randomized trial and aims to report the long-term outcomes of the two groups. Forty-eight patients from the randomized trial were followed up in an outpatient clinic with regular monitoring. Patients were compared for clinicopathological variables, disease recurrence and survival rates. Clinicopathological details were comparable between the two groups. During the median follow-up periods of 32 months for the open group and 65 months endo-laparoscopic group, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in disease recurrence rate, 5-year overall survival (27% vs 48%, P = 0.076) and 5-year disease-free survival rates (48% vs 52%, P = 0.63). Besides being a safe bridge to subsequent elective laparoscopic surgery, preoperative self-expanding metallic stents insertion does not adversely affect oncological outcomes and patient survival. Based on our data, the endo-laparoscopic approach is the treatment of choice for patients presenting with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. © 2013 Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery, Asia Endosurgery Task Force and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                GE Port J Gastroenterol
                GE Port J Gastroenterol
                GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology
                Karger Publishers
                2341-4545
                2387-1954
                28 March 2016
                Mar-Apr 2016
                28 March 2016
                : 23
                : 2
                : 59-60
                Affiliations
                [a ]Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Espírito Santo de Évora, Évora, Portugal
                [b ]Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto Francisco Gentil, Porto, Portugal
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. pires.sara@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2341-4545(16)00036-3
                10.1016/j.jpge.2016.02.006
                5580099
                28868434
                c67a9f24-69b6-4aa1-b27c-6236599d0b8f
                © 2016 Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Editorial

                Comments

                Comment on this article