ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: For relief of bowel obstruction in left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) can be placed. In a curative setting, these two strategies have been extensively studied as a bridge to elective resection. Guidelines recommend SEMS as the preferred option in the palliative setting, but adherence in daily practice is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to gain more insight into patients with LSOCC who received palliative treatment with SEMS or DS at a national level. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted in the Netherlands. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on all patients with LSOCC treated with DS or SEMS not followed by resection of the primary tumour between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were analysed. Type of treatment (DS or SEMS) for different clinical scenarios, was the main outcome of this study, and was also evaluated over the years (2015-2019). RESULTS: Palliative treatment with SEMS or DS for LSOCC was performed in 1077 patients, of whom 79.2% had metastatic disease (M1). Patients without metastatic disease (M0) were older (≥ 80 years M0 67.4%, M1 25.3%, P < 0.001), had a worse clinical condition (ASA III 51.4% versus 36.37%, ASA IV-V 13.3% versus 4.0% P < 0.001) and presented with higher tumour stage (cT4 55.4% versus 33.5%, % P < 0.001). DS was performed in 91.5% of the patients and SEMS in 8.5%. The proportion of DS did not significantly differ between patients with M1 and M0 (91.8% vs. 90.2% respectively, P = 0.525). No increase in SEMS application was observed over the years, with a stable overall proportion of DS of 91-92% per year. In the multivariable analyses, ninety-day mortality and overall survival were not significantly different between SEMS and DS. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that DS was the primary treatment modality for palliative management of LSOCC in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019, while the guidelines recommended SEMS as preferred treatment. For patients with LSOCC eligible for stenting in the palliative setting, SEMS placement should become more available and accessible as the preferred treatment option, to avoid a stoma in the terminal phase of life.
Subject(s)
Colonic Neoplasms , Intestinal Obstruction , Palliative Care , Self Expandable Metallic Stents , Humans , Palliative Care/methods , Palliative Care/statistics & numerical data , Intestinal Obstruction/etiology , Intestinal Obstruction/therapy , Intestinal Obstruction/surgery , Intestinal Obstruction/mortality , Male , Female , Colonic Neoplasms/complications , Colonic Neoplasms/pathology , Colonic Neoplasms/mortality , Colonic Neoplasms/therapy , Aged , Retrospective Studies , Netherlands/epidemiology , Aged, 80 and over , Middle AgedABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Perforated colon cancer (PCC) is a distinct clinical entity with implications for treatment and prognosis, however data on PCC seems scarce. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the recent literature on clinical outcomes of PCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane library and Google scholar was performed. Studies describing intentionally curative treatment for patients with PCC since 2010 were included. The main outcome measures consisted of short-term surgical complications and long-term oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising a total of 2696 PCC patients. In these studies, various entities of PCC were defined. Comparative studies showed that PCC patients as compared to non-PCC patients have an increased risk of 30-day mortality (8-33% vs 3-5%), increased post-operative complications (33-56% vs 22-28%), worse overall survival (36-40% vs 48-65%) and worse disease-free survival (34-43% vs 50-73%). Two studies distinguished free-perforations from contained perforations, revealing that free-perforation is associated with significantly higher 30-day mortality (19-26% vs 0-10%), lower overall survival (24-28% vs 42-64%) and lower disease-free survival (15% vs 53%) as compared to contained perforations. CONCLUSION: Data on PCC is scarce, with various PCC entities defined in the studies included. Heterogeneity of the study population, definition of PCC and outcome measures made pooling of the data impossible. In general, perforation, particularly free perforation, seems to be associated with a substantial negative effect on outcomes in colon cancer patients undergoing surgery. Better definition and description of the types of perforation in future studies is essential, as outcomes seem to differ between types of PCC and might require different treatment strategies.