Search

Contains fulltext : 229287.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A matched comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus brachytherapy recently demonstrated that EBRT appears at least as effective for palliating dysphagia in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. The aim of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after EBRT versus brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter prospective cohort study, patients with incurable esophageal cancer requiring palliation of dysphagia were included to undergo EBRT (20 Gy in 5 fractions). This EBRT cohort was compared to the single-dose 12 Gy brachytherapy cohort of the previously reported SIREC-trial. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for baseline imbalances. The primary endpoint of dysphagia improvement was reported previously. PROs were secondary outcomes and assessed at baseline and 3 months after treatment using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 115 enrolled EBRT patients and 93 brachytherapy patients were eligible. After matching, 69 well-balanced pairs remained. At follow-up, significant deteriorations in functioning (i.e. physical, role, social), pain, appetite loss, and trouble with taste were observed after brachytherapy. In the EBRT group, such deterioration was observed only for role functioning, while significant improvements in trouble with eating and pain were found. Between-group comparison showed mostly comparable PRO changes, but significantly favored EBRT with regard to nausea, vomiting, pain, and appetite loss. CONCLUSION: Short course EBRT results in similar or better PROs at 3 months after treatment compared to single-dose brachytherapy for the palliation of malignant dysphagia. These findings further support its use and inclusion in clinical practice guidelines.

Background and Aims To further optimize endoscopic stent placement, an esophageal fully covered self-expandable metal stent with a through-the-scope (TTS) delivery system was designed, providing direct endoscopic control during stent placement. The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and safety of a TTS stent approach for palliation of malignant dysphagia. Methods This multicenter prospective feasibility study included patients with malignant dysphagia undergoing stent placement. The primary outcome was technical success of TTS stent placement. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome, adverse events, and survival. Patients were prospectively evaluated at days 14 and 28, and monthly thereafter, until death or stent removal. Results In total, 33 stents were placed in 32 patients. TTS stent placement was feasible in 30 (91%) procedures. In the other 3 procedures (9%), no large-channel endoscope could be introduced because of patient discomfort. In 10 (33%) TTS procedures, technical success was achieved because no fluoroscopy and/or guidewire was used, whereas in 20 (67%) TTS procedures, placement was supported by a guidewire (n = 9), or fluoroscopy and a guidewire (n = 11). After 2 weeks, dysphagia scores had improved in 24 (86%) patients. Median dysphagia-free time was 32 days (interquartile range [IQR], 17–76 days). In 20 (63%) patients, 29 serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred. Recurrent dysphagia occurred in 13 (41%) patients due to migration (n = 5), tissue overgrowth (n = 4), and stent deformation (n = 4). Other SAEs included significant retrosternal pain (n = 4), hemorrhage (n = 2), and esophageal perforation (n = 1). No patient died from a stent-related cause. Median survival was 42 days (IQR, 28–91 days). Conclusion Placement of an esophageal TTS stent was feasible in most of the patients with malignant dysphagia. However, stent placement was associated with a relatively high adverse event rate, and in more than one-third of patients, stent placement still required fluoroscopy, which limited optimal benefit of the TTS approach. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03269903.)

Purpose Clinical evidence regarding optimal radiation dose for palliation of dysphagia from esophageal cancer is generally lacking. In an effort to investigate optimal radiation dose, we assessed 2 different radiation schedules for palliation of dysphagia. Methods and Materials We performed a multicenter, retrospective study comparing low-dose radiation therapy (LR: 5 x 4 Gy external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]) with high-dose radiation therapy (HR: 10 x 3 Gy EBRT and 12-Gy single-dose intraluminal brachytherapy) for palliation of dysphagia in patients with inoperable or metastasized esophageal cancer. Primary outcome was improvement of dysphagia at 6 weeks after start of radiation therapy. Additional outcomes were persistent and recurrent dysphagia during patients' remaining life, severe adverse events, and survival. Results In total, 292 patients (LR, n=117; HR, n=175) were included in this study. After matching, 144 patients (72 in each group) were compared. Improvement of dysphagia at 6 weeks was achieved in 50% of patients after LR and in 66% after HR (P = .071). Persistent or recurrent dysphagia occurred in 64% of patients after LR and in 42% after HR (P = .012). No difference in the rate of severe adverse events was found (P = .889). Median survival was 88 days (95% confidence interval, 64-112) after LR and 177 days (95% confidence interval, 131-223) after HR (P Conclusions This study shows that both LR and HR were well tolerated and effective in short-term relief of dysphagia in patients with inoperable or metastasized esophageal cancer. HR was associated with better long-term relief of dysphagia compared with LR. Our findings suggest that HR could be considered for patients with a longer life expectancy, but prospective studies are required.

Contains fulltext : 220092.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Background: The Dutch guidelines for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer recommend discussion of patients by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Despite this recommendation, one previous study in the Netherlands suggested that therapeutic guidance was missing for palliative care of patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of the current study was therefore to assess the impact of an MDT discussion on initial palliative treatment and outcome of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.Material and methods: The population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry was used to identify patients treated for esophageal or GEJ cancer with palliative intent between 2010 and 2017 in 7 hospitals. We compared patients discussed by the MDT with patients not discussed by the MDT in a multivariate analysis. Primary outcome was type of initial palliative treatment. Secondary outcome was overall survival.Results: A total of 389/948 (41%) patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer were discussed by the MDT before initial palliative treatment. MDT discussion compared to non-MDT discussion was associated with more patients treated with palliative intent external beam radiotherapy (38% vs. 21%, OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.8-3.9]) and systemic therapy (30% vs. 23%, OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0-2.5]), and fewer patients treated with stent placement (4% vs. 12%, OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1-0.6]) and best supportive care alone (12% vs. 33%, OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1-0.3]). MDT discussion was also associated with improved survival (169 days vs. 107 days, HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1-1.6]).Conclusion: Our study shows that MDT discussion of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer resulted in more patients treated with initial palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with patients not discussed by the MDT. Moreover, MDT discussion may have a positive effect on survival, highlighting the importance of MDT meetings at all stages of treatment.

Endoscopic dilation (ED) is still the mainstay of therapeutic management of benign esophageal strictures (BESs). This study aimed to establish risk factors for refractory BESs and assess long-term clinical outcomes of ED.We performed a retrospective study in 891 patients who underwent ED from 2003 to 2018 for BESs. We searched electronic medical records in 6 tertiary care centers in the Netherlands for data on clinical outcome of ED. Median follow-up was 39 months. The primary endpoint was risk factors for refractory BESs, defined as factors associated with an increased number of ED sessions during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were time from first to last ED session and adverse events.Dilation up to 13 to 15 mm was associated with a higher number of ED sessions than dilation up to 16 to 18 mm (5.0 vs 4.1; hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; P = .001). Compared with peptic strictures, anastomotic (4.9 vs 3.6; HR, 2.1; P .001), radiation (5.0 vs 3.6; HR, 3.0; P .001), caustic (7.2 vs 3.6; HR, 2.7; P .001), and postendotherapy (3.9 vs 3.6; HR, 1.8; P = .005) strictures were associated with a higher number of ED sessions. After 1 year of follow-up, the proportions of patients who remained free of ED was 75% in anastomotic, 71% in radiation, 70% in peptic, 83% in postendotherapy, and 62% in caustic strictures. Esophageal perforation occurred in 23 ED sessions (.4%) in 22 patients (2.4%).More than 60% of patients with BESs remain free of ED after 1 year of follow-up. Because dilation up to 16 to 18 mm diameter was associated with fewer ED sessions during follow-up, we suggest that clinicians should consider dilation up to at least 16 mm to reduce the number of ED sessions in these patients.

Contains fulltext : 193353.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OPINION STATEMENT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Esophageal stents are used in clinical practice for endoscopic treatment of a wide variety of esophageal diseases and conditions. This review provides key principles and a literature update on the utility and limitations of esophageal stenting in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Indications for esophageal stenting can be subdivided into two groups. The first group consists of patients with malignant or benign dysphagia, in which an esophageal stent restores luminal patency. In the past years, temporary stent placement has increasingly been used in the therapeutic management of refractory benign esophageal strictures. When endoscopic repeated bougie dilation and other endoscopic treatment modalities have failed, an esophageal stent could be considered. Based on the literature, a fully covered self-expandable metal stent may be the preferred choice for the treatment of both malignant and benign dysphagia. The second group consists of patients with leakage from the esophageal lumen into the surrounding tissue. Esophageal leakage can be subdivided into three forms, benign esophageal perforations (iatrogenic and spontaneous), anastomotic leakage after reconstructive esophageal surgery, and fistula. In a carefully selected group of patients, a covered esophageal stent may be used for sealing off the leakage, thereby preventing further contamination of the tissue surrounding the defect. The past few years, several validated prediction tools have been developed that may assist clinicians in the selection of patients eligible for esophageal stent placement. Based on retrospective studies and expert opinion, a partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stent may have a role in treatment of esophageal leakage. Research do date supports the utilization of esophageal stents for the treatment of malignant or benign dysphagia and esophageal leakage.

When esophageal leakage is suspected, diagnostic work-up usually starts with endoscopy followed by CT of the thorax. Clinicians should consider esophageal leakage a clinical emergency as early diagnosis and treatment are associated with improved outcome. Upon diagnosis, acute therapeutic management in a specialized center with appropriate multidisciplinary infrastructure and expertise is indicated as innovative endoscopic treatment options have become reasonable alternatives to invasive surgical interventions. Promising endoscopic treatment options include esophageal stent placement, endoscopic vacuum therapy, and over-the-scope clip placement. In effort to evaluate the current literature, a systematic literature search was performed on studies reporting clinical outcome of patients treated with these endoscopic treatment options for benign esophageal perforations and anastomotic leakage. The systematic search yielded 15 studies (932 patients) discussing stent placement, 14 studies (295 patients) discussing endoscopic vacuum therapy, and 8 studies (41 patients) discussing over-the-scope clip placement. Clinical success was achieved in the majority of all patients. However, the studies predominantly consisted of small single-center retrospective case series. Careful selection of patients is therefore recommended when considering endoscopic therapy for esophageal leakage. Furthermore, clinical tools may aid in predicting patients’ prognosis and selection of patients that could benefit from endoscopic therapy. In the future, randomized studies comparing available endoscopic treatment options are needed to guide treatment choice for patients with esophageal leakage in daily clinical practice.

Item does not contain fulltext Palliation of dysphagia is the cornerstone of palliative treatment in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer. Available palliative options for dysphagia are oesophageal stent placement and radiotherapy. In general, oesophageal stent placement is the preferred therapeutic option in patients with a relatively poor prognosis because of its rapid relief of dysphagia. Regardless of ongoing technical developments, recurrence of dysphagia and stent-related complications are still occurring. For patients with a relatively good prognosis, intra-luminal brachytherapy is advised because of its sustained palliation of dysphagia. Due to limited availability of intra-luminal brachytherapy in clinical practice, fractionated external beam radiation therapy is commonly applied as an alternative. Selection of the optimal palliative approach for patients remains however challenging as conclusive high-quality evidence is limited. Moreover, with the introduction of new palliative treatment options (e.g. palliative chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic options) and the concurrent change of patient characteristics, supporting evidence from large randomised studies is warranted.