|
1
|
Peiró I, Milla J, Arribas L, Hurtós L, González-Tampán AR, Bellver M, Fort E, Molina-Mata K, Joudanin JR, Valcarcel J, González-Barboteo J. Venting percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy in malignant bowel obstruction: safety and effectiveness in a comprehensive cancer centre. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2024; 13:e851-e854. [PMID: 36104161 DOI: 10.1136/spcare-2022-003895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2022] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Approximately 20% of established malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) patients do not respond to pharmacological treatment. In these cases, venting percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (VPRG) may be useful. Existing evidence is based on retrospective studies with methodological limitations. The purpose of this study is to describe safety and effectiveness for symptom control after VPRG placement in a prospective cohort of MBO patients. METHODS Complications of VPRG placement, symptom control, destination on discharge and survival were analysed. RESULTS Twenty-one patients were included, 13 (61.9%) of whom were women. Mean age was 62.7 years (36-85). Local pain (n=8, 38.1%) and peristomal leakage (n=4, 19%) were the most frequent minor complications. No major complications occurred. Nausea and vomiting were relieved in most patients (n=20, 95.2%) after VPRG, and small quantities of liquid diet were introduced to these patients. Median time to death after VPRG was 13 days (IQR 8.6-17.4). Thirteen patients (61.9%) were discharged, with seven of them (33.3%) returning home. CONCLUSIONS When pharmacological treatment fails, the use of VPRG in MBO patients may be feasible, safe and effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inmaculada Peiró
- Clinical Nutrition Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
- Bellvitge Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Jennifer Milla
- Palliative Care Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| | - Lorena Arribas
- Clinical Nutrition Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
- Bellvitge Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Laura Hurtós
- Clinical Nutrition Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| | | | - Marta Bellver
- Clinical Nutrition Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| | - Eduard Fort
- Clinical Nutrition Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| | - Kevin Molina-Mata
- Medical Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| | - Jonathan R Joudanin
- Department of Radiology, Bellvitge University Hospital, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| | - Joana Valcarcel
- Department of Radiology, Bellvitge University Hospital, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| | - Jesús González-Barboteo
- Bellvitge Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, Spain
- Palliative Care Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Patterson M, Greenley S, Ma Y, Bullock A, Curry J, Smithson J, Lind M, Johnson MJ. Inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: palliative interventions outcomes - mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2024; 13:e515-e527. [PMID: 38557409 PMCID: PMC10850628 DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Parenteral nutrition (PN) and palliative venting gastrostomies (PVG) are two interventions used clinically to manage inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (MBO); however, little is known about their role in clinical and quality-of-life outcomes to inform clinical decision making. AIM To examine the impact of PN and PVG on clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in inoperable MBO. DESIGN A mixed-methods systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES The following databases were searched (from inception to 29 April 2021): MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Health Technology Assessment and CareSearch for qualitative or quantitative studies of MBO, and PN or PVG. Titles, abstracts and papers were independently screened and quality appraised. RESULTS A total of 47 studies representing 3538 participants were included. Current evidence cannot tell us whether these interventions improve MBO survival, but this was a firm belief by patients and clinicians informing their decision. Both interventions appear to allow patients valuable time at home. PVG provides relief from nausea and vomiting. Both interventions improve quality of life but not without significant burdens. Nutritional and performance status may be maintained or improved with PN. CONCLUSION PN and PVG seem to allow valuable time at home. We found no conclusive evidence to show either intervention prolonged survival, due to the lack of randomised controlled trials that have to date not been performed due to concerns about equipoise. Well-designed studies regarding survival for both interventions are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42020164170.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Patterson
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| | - Sarah Greenley
- Institute of Clinical and Applied Health Research, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK
| | - Yangmyung Ma
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
| | - Alex Bullock
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| | - Jordan Curry
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| | - Jacquelyn Smithson
- Gastrointestinal and Liver services, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK
| | - Michael Lind
- Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| | - Miriam J Johnson
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Yu J, Sullivan BG, Nguyen NT, Hohmann SF, Harris AH, Micic D, Turaga KK, Senthil M, Eng OS. Readmission and Disposition in Patients With Malignant Bowel Obstructions Following Gastrostomy Tube. Am Surg 2023; 89:5915-5920. [PMID: 37257144 DOI: 10.1177/00031348231180915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) can develop malignant bowel obstructions (MBOs) requiring inpatient admission and nasogastric tube decompression. Palliative decompressive gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) may affect patient disposition, allowing for self-management and reduction in inpatient services. Therefore, we sought to assess disposition and inpatient readmission rates in patients admitted with PC and MBO following G-tube placement. METHODS The Vizient® Clinical Data Base was queried for inpatient admissions from October 2018 to May 2022 utilizing ICD-10 codes to identify patients admitted with PC and bowel obstruction, with or without G-tube placement. Demographics and hospital outcomes were recorded. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed. RESULTS From 750 patients, 59 (7.9%) had a G-tube placed. Compared to patients without G-tubes, those with G-tubes had lower rates of disposition to home (32.2% vs 70.0%, P < .001) and higher rates of disposition to hospice (home: 30.5% vs 7.8%, P < .001, facility: 10.2% vs 3.9%, P = .02). There was no significant difference in the rate (17.3% vs 22.3%, P = .40) or risk (OR = 1.44, 95% CI .69-3.01) of 30-day readmissions with G-tubes. However, palliative care consultation (OR 33.77, 95% CI 19.16-59.52) and G-tube placement (OR 5.82, 95% CI 2.56-13.25) were independent predictors for hospice. DISCUSSION Placement of G-tubes in patients with PC and MBO was associated with higher rates of disposition to hospice but there is no difference in 30-day readmission rates compared to those without G-tubes. Further prospective studies are needed to understand the role of G-tube placement in patients with MBO in relation to outcomes and disposition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingjing Yu
- Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Brittany G Sullivan
- Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Ninh T Nguyen
- Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Samuel F Hohmann
- Center for Advanced Analytics and Informatics, Vizient, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Alyssa H Harris
- Center for Advanced Analytics and Informatics, Vizient, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Dejan Micic
- Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kiran K Turaga
- Department of Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Maheswari Senthil
- Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Oliver S Eng
- Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Krouse RS, Anderson GL, Arnold KB, Thomson CA, Nfonsam VN, Al-Kasspooles MF, Walker JL, Sun V, Alvarez Secord A, Han ES, Leon-Takahashi AM, Isla-Ortiz D, Rodgers P, Hendren S, Sanchez Salcedo M, Laryea JA, Graybill WS, Flaherty DC, Mogal H, Miner TJ, Pimiento JM, Kitano M, Badgwell B, Whalen G, Lamont JP, Guevara OA, Senthil MS, Dewdney SB, Silberfein E, Wright JD, Friday B, Fahy B, Anantha Sathyanarayana S, O'Rourke M, Bakitas M, Sloan J, Grant M, Deutsch GB, Deneve JL. Surgical versus non-surgical management for patients with malignant bowel obstruction (S1316): a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 8:908-918. [PMID: 37541263 PMCID: PMC10530384 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(23)00191-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2023] [Revised: 06/09/2023] [Accepted: 06/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Malignant small bowel obstruction has a poor prognosis and is associated with multiple related symptoms. The optimal treatment approach is often unclear. We aimed to compare surgical versus non-surgical management with the aim to determine the optimal approach for managing malignant bowel obstruction. METHODS S1316 was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial done within the National Cancer Trials Network at 30 hospital and cancer research centres in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Participants had an intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal primary cancer confirmed via pathological report and malignant bowel disease; were aged 18 years or older with a Zubrod performance status 0-2 within 1 week before admission; had a surgical indication; and treatment equipoise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgical or non-surgical treatment using a dynamic balancing algorithm, balancing on primary tumour type. Patients who declined consent for random assignment were offered a prospective observational patient choice pathway. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (good days) at 91 days. Analyses were based on intention-to-treat linear, logistic, and Cox regression models combining data from both pathways and adjusting for potential confounders. Treatment complications were assessed in all analysed patients in the study. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02270450. FINDINGS From May 11, 2015, to April 27, 2020, 221 patients were enrolled (143 [65%] were female and 78 [35%] were male). There were 199 evaluable participants: 49 in the randomised pathway (24 surgery and 25 non-surgery) and 150 in the patient choice pathway (58 surgery and 92 non-surgery). No difference was seen between surgery and non-surgery for the primary outcome of good days: mean 42·6 days (SD 32·2) in the randomised surgery group, 43·9 days (29·5) in the randomised non-surgery group, 54·8 days (27·0) in the patient choice surgery group, and 52·7 days (30·7) in the patient choice non-surgery group (adjusted mean difference 2·9 additional good days in surgical versus non-surgical treatment [95% CI -5·5 to 11·3]; p=0·50). During their initial hospital stay, six participants died, five due to cancer progression (four patients from the randomised pathway, two in each treatment group, and one from the patient choice pathway, in the surgery group) and one due to malignant bowel obstruction treatment complications (patient choice pathway, non-surgery). The most common grade 3-4 malignant bowel obstruction treatment complication was anaemia (three [6%] patients in the randomised pathway, all in the surgical group, and five [3%] patients in the patient choice pathway, four in the surgical group and one in the non-surgical group). INTERPRETATION In our study, whether patients received a surgical or non-surgical treatment approach did not influence good days during the first 91 days after registration. These findings should inform treatment decisions for patients hospitalised with malignant bowel obstruction. FUNDING Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert S Krouse
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Corporal Michael J Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Garnet L Anderson
- SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Kathryn B Arnold
- SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Cynthia A Thomson
- Department of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Valentine N Nfonsam
- Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; Department of Surgery, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | | | - Joan L Walker
- Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Virginia Sun
- Division of Nursing Research and Education, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Angeles Alvarez Secord
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Ernest S Han
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | | | - David Isla-Ortiz
- Department of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Phillip Rodgers
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Samantha Hendren
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Marco Sanchez Salcedo
- Department of Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas, Surquillo, Peru
| | - Jonathan A Laryea
- Department of Surgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Whitney S Graybill
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Devin C Flaherty
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Valley Health, Winchester, VA, USA
| | - Harveshp Mogal
- Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Thomas J Miner
- Department of Surgery, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Jose M Pimiento
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Mio Kitano
- Mays Cancer Center, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - Brian Badgwell
- Department of Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Giles Whalen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Umass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Jeffrey P Lamont
- Department of Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Oscar A Guevara
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Bogota, Colombia
| | - Maheswari S Senthil
- Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA; University of California-Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Summer B Dewdney
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Eric Silberfein
- Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jason D Wright
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Bret Friday
- Department of Hematology/Oncology Essentia Health Cancer Center, Duluth, MN, USA
| | - Bridget Fahy
- Department of Surgery, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
| | | | - Mark O'Rourke
- Center for Integrative Oncology and Survivorship, Greenville Health System, Clemson, SC, USA
| | - Marie Bakitas
- School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Jeff Sloan
- Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Marcia Grant
- Division of Nursing Research and Education, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Gary B Deutsch
- Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Lake Success, NY, USA
| | - Jeremiah L Deneve
- Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Baker J, Smith PJ, White SJ, Gifford AJ. Availability of palliative parenteral nutrition to patients with advanced cancer: A national survey of service provision. J Hum Nutr Diet 2023; 36:1225-1233. [PMID: 36992552 DOI: 10.1111/jhn.13174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Revised: 03/22/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with advanced malignancy who are unable to meet their nutritional requirements orally or enterally as a result of intestinal failure may be considered for parenteral nutrition support. Current UK guidance recommends that patients with a 3-month prognosis and good performance status (i.e., Karnofsky performance status >50) should be considered for this intervention at home (termed Home Parenteral Nutrition; HPN). However, HPN is a nationally commissioned service by National Health Service (NHS) England and Improvement that can only be initiated at specific NHS centres and so may not be easily accessed by patients outside of these centres. This survey aimed to identify current clinical practice across UK hospitals about how palliative parenteral nutrition is initiated. METHODS Clinical staff associated with Nutrition Support Teams at NHS Organisations within the UK were invited to complete an electronically administered survey of national clinical practice through advertisements posted on relevant professional interest groups. RESULTS Sixty clinicians responded to the survey administered between September and November 2020. The majority of respondents responded positively that decisions made to initiate palliative parenteral nutrition were conducted in alignment with current national guidance in relation to decision-making and formulation of parenteral nutrition. Variation was observed in relation to the provision of advance care planning in relation to nutrition support prior to discharge, as well as the consideration of venting gastrostomy placement in patients with malignant bowel obstruction unsuitable for surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS Adherence to current national guidance in relation to the provision of palliative parenteral nutrition is variable for some aspects of care. Further work is required particularly in relation to maximising the opportunity for the provision of advance care planning prior to discharge in this patient cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Baker
- Pharmacy Department, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
- School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Philip J Smith
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Simon J White
- School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Alison J Gifford
- School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Keele, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Gaughan S, Williams M. The holistic management of malignant bowel obstruction in women with advanced ovarian cancer at end of life. BRITISH JOURNAL OF NURSING (MARK ALLEN PUBLISHING) 2023; 32:550-555. [PMID: 37344127 DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2023.32.12.550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/23/2023]
Abstract
Bowel obstruction is commonly a pre-terminal event in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Management of symptoms will often be the focus rather than surgical intervention. Determining the patient's end-of-life wishes is paramount - because the prognosis for these patients can be short, advanced care planning is key. This case study will explore the management of nausea and vomiting associated with malignant bowel obstruction and demonstrate how a patient's psychological and social wellbeing is as important as managing the physical symptoms. It will discuss how skilled and effective communication is vital early in the disease trajectory in ensuring the patient's needs are met. Additionally, by undertaking a thorough holistic needs assessment, all aspects of end-of-life care can be discussed with the patient and family, which may enable the achievement of a preferred place of care and a peaceful, dignified death. Multidisciplinary working and co-ordination of care may allow for quick interventions, meeting individual needs and symptoms being managed more effectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Gaughan
- Macmillan Lung and Rarer Clinical Nurse Specialist and Team Lead, Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust: Aylesbury
| | - Mary Williams
- Senior Lecturer in Cancer, Palliative and End of Life Care, Buckinghamshire New University, High Wycombe
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Moyett JM, Howell EP, Broadwater G, Greene M, Secord AA, Watson CH, Davidson BA. Understanding the spectrum of malignant bowel obstructions in gynecologic cancers and the application of the Henry score. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 174:114-120. [PMID: 37182431 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Revised: 04/21/2023] [Accepted: 04/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Malignancy-associated bowel obstruction (MBO) is a potential sequela of advanced gynecologic cancers, adversely impacting both quality of life and prognosis. The Henry score (HS) was developed in a gastrointestinal cancer-predominant population to predict 30-day mortality. We aim to characterize MBO in gynecologic cancers and assess the utility of the HS in this population. METHODS This is a retrospective review of patients with gynecologic cancer and MBO admitted to a single academic institution from 2016 to 2021. The primary outcome is to characterize malignant small and large bowel obstructions in primary and recurrent gynecologic cancer using readmission and mortality rates. Secondary outcomes are to assess the Henry score and inpatient MBO management. RESULTS 179 patients totaling 269 were admissions identified, most commonly affecting patients with ovarian cancer. The majority (89.4%) were managed non-operatively while 10.6% were managed surgically. No significant differences were observed in survival for medical versus surgical management. Thirty-day mortality increased with increasing HS (0%, 0-1; 14.3%, 2-3; 40.9%, 4-5). Over 1/3 (34.1%) of patients were readmitted for recurrent or persistent MBO. Goals of care conversations were documented for 56.8% of patients with HS 4-5. Mortality rates across the entire cohort were high-20.1% and 60.9% had died by 1 and 6 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates following an initial MBO admission are poor. The HS has utility in gynecologic cancers for assessing 30-day mortality and may be a useful tool to aid in the management and counseling of patients with gynecologic cancer and MBO.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elizabeth P Howell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Gloria Broadwater
- Biostatistics Shared Resources, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - Angeles Alvarez Secord
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Catherine H Watson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Brittany A Davidson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Demarest K, Lavu H, Collins E, Batra V. Comprehensive Diagnosis and Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction: A Review. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 2023; 37:91-105. [PMID: 36377820 DOI: 10.1080/15360288.2022.2106012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Malignant bowel obstruction is a common complication of advanced gastrointestinal, gynecologic, and genitourinary tumors. Patients present with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and constipation. Cross-sectional imaging is essential to make a diagnosis of bowel obstruction. Initial management is conservative with fluid replacement, electrolyte replacement, bowel rest and sometimes nasogastric decompression. Numerous advanced options exist for definitive management, though none are overly promising but nevertheless may improve quality and quantity of life. Surgical bypass, endoscopic stenting, and endoscopic decompression are some of the options with variable efficacy and are employed in select patients. Chemotherapy may be utilized if the bowel obstruction resolves to reduce tumor burden in a limited number of patients. Parenteral nutrition is an option and should typically be used in surgical patients with good functional and nutritional status with limited tumor burden or curative intent. Palliative care and hospice should be discussed in patients with advanced malignancy who present with peritoneal carcinomatosis or multiple levels of obstruction. Overall prognosis of malignant bowel obstruction is poor, and median survival ranges from 26 to 192 days.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaitlin Demarest
- Kaitlin Demarest, MD, is with, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Harish Lavu, MD, is with the Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Elizabeth Collins, MD, is with the Department of Family & Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Vivek Batra, MD, is with the Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Harish Lavu
- Kaitlin Demarest, MD, is with, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Harish Lavu, MD, is with the Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Elizabeth Collins, MD, is with the Department of Family & Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Vivek Batra, MD, is with the Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Elizabeth Collins
- Kaitlin Demarest, MD, is with, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Harish Lavu, MD, is with the Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Elizabeth Collins, MD, is with the Department of Family & Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Vivek Batra, MD, is with the Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Vivek Batra
- Kaitlin Demarest, MD, is with, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Harish Lavu, MD, is with the Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Elizabeth Collins, MD, is with the Department of Family & Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Vivek Batra, MD, is with the Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Gonzalez-Ochoa E, Alqaisi HA, Bhat G, Jivraj N, Lheureux S. Inoperable Bowel Obstruction in Ovarian Cancer: Prevalence, Impact and Management Challenges. Int J Womens Health 2022; 14:1849-1862. [PMID: 36597479 PMCID: PMC9805709 DOI: 10.2147/ijwh.s366680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2022] [Accepted: 12/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is one of the most severe complications in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, with an estimated incidence up to 50%. Its presence is related to poor prognosis and a life expectancy measured in weeks for inoperable cases. Symptoms are usually difficult to manage and often require hospitalization, which carries a high burden on patients, caregivers and the healthcare system. Management is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach to improve clinical outcomes. Patients with inoperable MBO are treated medically with analgesics, antiemetics, steroids and antisecretory agents. Parenteral nutrition and gut decompression with nasogastric tube, venting gastrostomy or stenting may be used as supportive therapy. Treatment decision-making is challenging and often based on clinical expertise and local policies, with lack of high-quality evidence to optimally standardize management. The present review summarizes current literature on inoperable bowel obstruction in ovarian cancer, focusing on epidemiology, prognostic factors, clinical outcomes, medical management, multidisciplinary interventions and quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eduardo Gonzalez-Ochoa
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Husam A Alqaisi
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gita Bhat
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nazlin Jivraj
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Stephanie Lheureux
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,Correspondence: Stephanie Lheureux, Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2M9, Canada, Tel +1 416-946-2818, Email
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Zanatto RM, Lisboa CN, de Oliveira JC, dos Reis TCDS, Cabral Ferreira de Oliveira A, Coelho MJP, Vidigal BDÁ, Ribeiro HSDC, Ribeiro R, Fernandes PHDS, Braun AC, Pinheiro RN, Oliveira AF, Laporte GA. Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology guidelines for malignant bowel obstruction management. J Surg Oncol 2022; 126:48-56. [DOI: 10.1002/jso.26930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2022] [Revised: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Claudia Naylor Lisboa
- Instituto Nacional de Cancer José Alencar Gomes da Silva—INCA Rio de Janeiro RJ Brazil
| | | | | | | | - Manoel J. P. Coelho
- Departament of Surgical Oncology Hospital Santo Alberto Manaus Amazonas Brazil
| | | | | | - Reitan Ribeiro
- Department of Surgical Oncology Erasto Gaertner Hospital Curitiba Brazil
| | | | | | | | - Alexandre F. Oliveira
- Department of Surgical Oncology Juiz de Fora Federal University Juiz de Fora Minas Gerais Brazil
| | - Gustavo A. Laporte
- Department of Surgical Oncology Santa Casa de Porto Alegre/Santa Rita Hospital/Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre Porto Alegre Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Fugazza A, Capogreco A, Cappello A, Nicoletti R, Da Rio L, Galtieri PA, Maselli R, Carrara S, Pellegatta G, Spadaccini M, Vespa E, Colombo M, Khalaf K, Repici A, Anderloni A. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy: Indications and techniques. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 14:250-266. [PMID: 35719902 PMCID: PMC9157691 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i5.250] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2021] [Revised: 08/03/2021] [Accepted: 04/24/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Nutritional support is essential in patients who have a limited capability to maintain their body weight. Therefore, oral feeding is the main approach for such patients. When physiological nutrition is not possible, positioning of a nasogastric, nasojejunal tube, or other percutaneous devices may be feasible alternatives. Creating a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a suitable option to be evaluated for patients that need nutritional support for more than 4 wk. Many diseases require nutritional support by PEG, with neurological, oncological, and catabolic diseases being the most common. PEG can be performed endoscopically by various techniques, radiologically or surgically, with different outcomes and related adverse events (AEs). Moreover, some patients that need a PEG placement are fragile and are unable to express their will or sign a written informed consent. These conditions highlight many ethical problems that become difficult to manage as treatment progresses. The aim of this manuscript is to review all current endoscopic techniques for percutaneous access, their indications, postprocedural follow-up, and AEs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Fugazza
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Antonio Capogreco
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Annalisa Cappello
- Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, AUSL Bologna Bellaria-Maggiore Hospital, Bologna 40121, Italy
| | - Rosangela Nicoletti
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Leonardo Da Rio
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Piera Alessia Galtieri
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberta Maselli
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Silvia Carrara
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Gaia Pellegatta
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Spadaccini
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Edoardo Vespa
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Matteo Colombo
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Kareem Khalaf
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele 20072, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandro Repici
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Anderloni
- Division of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano 20089, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Rajan A, Wangrattanapranee P, Kessler J, Kidambi TD, Tabibian JH. Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices. World J Gastrointest Surg 2022; 14:286-303. [PMID: 35664365 PMCID: PMC9131834 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i4.286] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2021] [Revised: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 04/04/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Gastrostomy tube placement is a procedure that achieves enteral access for nutrition, decompression, and medication administration. Preprocedural evaluation and selection of patients is necessary to provide optimal benefit and reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). Appropriate indications, contraindications, ethical considerations, and comorbidities of patients referred for gastrostomy placement should be weighed and balanced. Additionally, endoscopist should consider either a transoral or transabdominal approach is appropriate, and radiologic or surgical gastrostomy tube placement is needed. However, medical history, physical examination, and imaging prior to the procedure should be considered to tailor the appropriate approach and reduce the risk of AEs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anand Rajan
- Department ofGastroenterology, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, CA 91342, United States
- Department ofGastroenterology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010, United States
| | | | - Jonathan Kessler
- Department ofInterventional Radiology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010, United States
| | - Trilokesh Dey Kidambi
- Department ofGastroenterology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010, United States
| | - James H Tabibian
- Department ofGastroenterology, UCLA-Olive View Medical Center, Sylmar, CA 91342, United States
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Porter RJ, McKinlay AW, Metcalfe EL. Endoscopically placed venting gastrostomy can be a safe and effective palliative intervention in benign and malignant gastrointestinal obstruction. Frontline Gastroenterol 2021; 13:309-315. [PMID: 35722598 PMCID: PMC9186026 DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2021-101930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2021] [Accepted: 09/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Chronic gastrointestinal obstruction can precipitate a constellation of symptoms including nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension and pain that negatively impact on health-related quality of life. Decompression via venting gastrostomy can offer symptomatic relief but safety and efficacy data are sparse. This study characterises the diverse venting percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (vPEG) cohort at our tertiary referral centre and defines the safety and efficacy of this procedure. METHODS Patients undergoing vPEG between May 2012 and June 2020 were identified from a prospectively maintained database and demographic, procedure-related and mortality data were extracted. Retrospective analysis of case notes provided data on patient symptoms. Last follow-up was May 2021. RESULTS 27 patients (median age 63, range 18-90 years) underwent vPEG insertion. The majority of vPEGs were for patients with obstruction secondary to locally advanced or metastatic malignancy (n=21/27, 77.8%). Six procedures were performed for benign disease (n=6/27, 22.2%). No patients developed the recognised serious complications of bleeding, perforation or peritonitis from vPEG insertion. Symptoms of nausea (p=0.006), vomiting (p<0.001), abdominal distension (p<0.001) and abdominal pain (p=0.002) were improved following vPEG. Pain beyond the expected postprocedural discomfort was associated with a lower number of days survived postprocedure (p=0.026). CONCLUSION vPEG can be a safe and efficacious palliative intervention for benign and malignant chronic gastrointestinal obstruction. Severe postprocedural pain should be promptly investigated to exclude a potential complication. A defined clinical strategy for assessing and managing these patients would facilitate wider recognition of the benefits of vPEG and improve the safety profile in centres with more limited experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ross J Porter
- Department of Digestive Disorders, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK,Division of Clinical and Surgical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Alastair W McKinlay
- Department of Digestive Disorders, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Emma L Metcalfe
- Department of Digestive Disorders, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Litwin RJ, Tam AL, Sheth RA, Yevich SM, Chan JL, Jazaeri AA, Halm JK, Gupta S, Huang SY. Safety and efficacy of percutaneous transabdominal and transesophageal decompression gastric catheters for palliation of malignant bowel obstruction. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46:4489-4498. [PMID: 33999283 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03115-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2020] [Revised: 04/27/2021] [Accepted: 05/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and primary technical success rate of gastric decompression via percutaneous transabdominal gastrostomy (PTAG) or percutaneous transesophageal gastric (PTEG) catheter placement for management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). A secondary purpose was to evaluate the safety and success rate for PTAG catheter placement in patients with both MBO and ascites. METHODS A single-institution retrospective review of 385 patients who underwent attempted decompression gastric catheter placement from March 2013 to August 2018 was performed. Medical records and imaging studies were reviewed. A subgroup of patients with concomitant MBO and ascites were identified. The primary outcome measures were procedural technical success and procedural complications. RESULTS 394 decompression gastrostomy catheters were attempted from 2013 to 2018, n = 353 PTAG and n = 41 PTEG. The success rate was 95.5% (n = 337 of 353) for PTAG and 97.6% (n = 40 of 41) for PTEG. There were 63 total complications involving 47 (13.9%) patients following PTAG and 13 total complications involving 9 (22.5%) patients following PTEG, P = 0.16. For the subgroup of patients with MBO and ascites, the success rate was 94.8% (n = 182 of 192 patients), and there were 20 complications involving 17 (12.9%) of 132 patients. CONCLUSION Gastric decompression for patients with MBO via PTAG or PTEG catheter placement is associated with high success rates and low complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert J Litwin
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1471, Houston, TX, 77401, USA
| | - Alda L Tam
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1471, Houston, TX, 77401, USA
| | - Rahul A Sheth
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1471, Houston, TX, 77401, USA
| | - Steven M Yevich
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1471, Houston, TX, 77401, USA
| | - Johanna L Chan
- Department of Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, 720 Cambridge St, 8th floor, Suite 8B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Amir A Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecology Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77401, USA
| | - Josiah K Halm
- Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77401, USA
| | - Sanjay Gupta
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1471, Houston, TX, 77401, USA
| | - Steven Y Huang
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1471, Houston, TX, 77401, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
Abstract
Malignant bowel obstruction is a challenging clinical problem encountered in patients with advanced abdominal and pelvic malignancies. Although medical therapies form the foundation of management, some patients may be suitable candidates for surgical and procedural interventions. The literature is composed primarily of retrospective single-institution experiences and the results of prospective trials are pending. Given the high symptom burden and limited life expectancy of these patients, management may be best informed by multidisciplinary teams with relevant expertise.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caitlin T Yeo
- Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Calgary, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, 1331 29 St NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N2, Canada
| | - Shaila J Merchant
- Division of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Queen's University, Burr 2, 76 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 2V7, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Bateni SB, Gingrich AA, Kirane AR, Sauder CAM, Gholami S, Bold RJ, Meyers FJ, Canter RJ. Chemotherapy After Diagnosis of Malignant Bowel Obstruction is Associated with Superior Survival for Medicare Patients with Advanced Malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:7555-7563. [PMID: 33829359 PMCID: PMC8519893 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09831-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 02/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Background Although malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) often is a terminal event, systemic therapies are advocated for select patients to extend survival. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with receipt of chemotherapy after MBO and to determine whether chemotherapy after MBO is associated with survival. Methods This retrospective cohort study investigated patients 65 years of age or older with metastatic gastrointestinal, gynecologic, or genitourinary cancers who were hospitalized with MBO from 2008 to 2012 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Fine and Gray models were used to identify factors associated with receipt of chemotherapy accounting for the competing risk of death. Cox models identified factors associated with overall survival. Results Of the 2983 MBO patients, 39% (n = 1169) were treated with chemotherapy after MBO. No differences in receipt of chemotherapy between the surgical and medical patients were found in the univariable analysis (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–1.07; p = 0.47) or multivariable analysis (SHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00–1.26; p = 0.06). Older age, African American race, medical comorbidities, non-colorectal and non-ovarian cancer diagnoses, sepsis, ascites, and intensive care unit stays were inversely associated with receipt of chemotherapy after MBO (p < 0.05). Chemotherapy with surgery was associated with longer survival than surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.97; 95% CI, 2.65–3.34; p < 0.01) or medical management without chemotherapy (aHR, 4.56; 95% CI, 4.04–5.14; p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses of biologically diverse cancers (colorectal, pancreatic, and ovarian) showed similar results, with greater survival related to chemotherapy (p < 0.05). Conclusions Chemotherapy plays an integral role in maximizing oncologic outcome for select patients with MBO. The data from this study are critical to optimizing multimodality care for these complex patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-09831-0.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah B Bateni
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alicia A Gingrich
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UC Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Amanda R Kirane
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UC Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Candice A M Sauder
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UC Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Sepideh Gholami
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UC Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Richard J Bold
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UC Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Frederick J Meyers
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UC Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Robert J Canter
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UC Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Khamaysi I, Leiderman M, Hajj E, Yassin K. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous venting duodenostomy: New technique. TURKISH JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 2021; 31:962-963. [PMID: 33626014 DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2020.2001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Iyad Khamaysi
- The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel;Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
| | - Maxim Leiderman
- Department of Radiology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
| | - Eisa Hajj
- Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
| | - Kamel Yassin
- Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Arvanitakis M, Gkolfakis P, Despott EJ, Ballarin A, Beyna T, Boeykens K, Elbe P, Gisbertz I, Hoyois A, Mosteanu O, Sanders DS, Schmidt PT, Schneider SM, van Hooft JE. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 1: Definitions and indications. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021; 53:81-92. [PMID: 33260229 DOI: 10.1055/a-1303-7449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
ESGE recommends considering the following indications for enteral tube insertion: (i) clinical conditions that make oral intake impossible (neurological conditions, obstructive causes); (ii) acute and/or chronic diseases that result in a catabolic state where oral intake becomes insufficient; and (iii) chronic small-bowel obstruction requiring a decompression gastrostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of temporary feeding tubes placed through a natural orifice (either nostril) in patients expected to require enteral nutrition (EN) for less than 4 weeks. If it is anticipated that EN will be required for more than 4 weeks, percutaneous access should be considered, depending on the clinical setting.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the gastric route as the primary option in patients in need of EN support. Only in patients with altered/unfavorable gastric anatomy (e. g. after previous surgery), impaired gastric emptying, intolerance to gastric feeding, or with a high risk of aspiration, should the jejunal route be chosen.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests that recent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to peptic ulcer disease with risk of rebleeding should be considered to be a relative contraindication to percutaneous enteral access procedures, as should hemodynamic or respiratory instability.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests that the presence of ascites and ventriculoperitoneal shunts should be considered to be additional risk factors for infection and, therefore, further preventive precautions must be taken in these cases.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that percutaneous tube placement (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [PEG], percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension [PEG-J], or direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy [D-PEJ]) should be considered to be a procedure with high hemorrhagic risk, and that in order to reduce this risk, specific guidelines for antiplatelet or anticoagulant use should be followed strictly.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with advanced dementia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with a life expectancy shorter than 30 days.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence*.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marianna Arvanitakis
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, CUB Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Paraskevas Gkolfakis
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, CUB Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Edward J Despott
- Royal Free Unit for Endoscopy and Centre for Gastroenterology, UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, The Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Asuncion Ballarin
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, CUB Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Torsten Beyna
- Department of Gastroenterology and Therapeutic Endoscopy, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Kurt Boeykens
- Nutrition Support Team, AZ Nikolaas Hospital, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium
| | - Peter Elbe
- Department of Upper Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.,Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ingrid Gisbertz
- Department of Gastroenterology, Bernhoven Hospital, Uden, The Netherlands
| | - Alice Hoyois
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, CUB Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Ofelia Mosteanu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - David S Sanders
- Academic Unit of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital and University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Peter T Schmidt
- Department of Medicine (Solna), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Medicine, Ersta Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Stéphane M Schneider
- Université Côte d'Azur, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Gastroentérologie et Nutrition, Nice, France
| | - Jeanin E van Hooft
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Chen PJ, Wang L, Peng YF, Chen N, Wu AW. Surgical intervention for malignant bowel obstruction caused by gastrointestinal malignancies. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2020; 12:323-331. [PMID: 32206182 PMCID: PMC7081110 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i3.323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2019] [Revised: 12/22/2019] [Accepted: 01/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common event for end-stage gastrointestinal cancer patients. Previous studies had demonstrated manifestations and clinical management of MBO with mixed malignancies. There still lack reports of the surgical treatment of MBO.
AIM To analyze the short-term outcomes and prognosis of palliative surgery for MBO caused by gastrointestinal cancer.
METHODS A retrospective chart review of 61 patients received palliative surgery between January 2016 to October 2018 was performed, of which 31 patients underwent massive debulking surgery (MDS) and 30 underwent ostomy/by-pass surgery (OBS). The 60-d symptom palliation rate, 30-d morbidity and mortality, and overall survival rates were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS The overall symptom palliation rate was 75.4% (46/61); patients in the MDS group had significantly higher symptom palliation rate than OBS group (90% vs 61.2%, P = 0.016). Patients with colorectal cancer who were in the MDS group showed significantly higher symptom improvement rates compared to the OBS group (overall, 76.4%; MDS, 61.5%; OBS, 92%; P = 0.019). However, patients with gastric cancer did not show a significant difference in symptom palliation rate between the MDS and OBS groups (OBS, 60%; MDS, 80%; P = 1.0). The median survival time in the MDS group was significantly longer than in the OBS group (10.9 mo vs 5.3 mo, P = 0.05).
CONCLUSION For patients with MBO caused by peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer, MDS can improve symptom palliation rates and prolong survival, without increasing mortality and morbidity rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peng-Ju Chen
- Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Unit III, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, China
| | - Lin Wang
- Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Unit III, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, China
| | - Yi-Fan Peng
- Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Unit III, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, China
| | - Nan Chen
- Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Unit III, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, China
| | - Ai-Wen Wu
- Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Unit III, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, China
| |
Collapse
|