Patient-reported outcomes after external beam radiotherapy versus brachytherapy for palliation of dysphagia in esophageal cancer: A matched comparison of two prospective trials.

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.

Early diagnosis is associated with improved clinical outcomes in benign esophageal perforation: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Time of diagnosis (TOD) of benign esophageal perforation is regarded as an important risk factor for clinical outcome, although convincing evidence is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess whether time between onset of perforation and diagnosis is associated with clinical outcome in patients with iatrogenic esophageal perforation (IEP) and Boerhaave's syndrome (BS). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library through June 2018 to identify studies. Authors were invited to share individual patient data and a meta-analysis was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42018093473). Patients were subdivided in early (≤ 24 h) and late (> 24 h) TOD and compared with mixed effects multivariable analysis while adjusting age, gender, location of perforation, initial treatment and center. Primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, re-interventions and ICU admission. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included IPD of 25 studies including 576 patients with IEP and 384 with BS. In IEP, early TOD was not associated with overall mortality (8% vs. 13%, OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.8-5.1), but was associated with a 23% decrease in ICU admissions (46% vs. 69%, OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.2), a 22% decrease in re-interventions (23% vs. 45%, OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2-6.7) and a 36% decrease in length of hospital stay (14 vs. 22 days, p < 0.001), compared with late TOD. In BS, no associations between TOD and outcomes were found. When combining IEP and BS, early TOD was associated with a 6% decrease in overall mortality (10% vs. 16%, OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.9), a 19% decrease in re-interventions (26% vs. 45%, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2) and a 35% decrease in mean length of hospital stay (16 vs. 22 days, p = 0.001), compared with late TOD. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient data meta-analysis confirms the general opinion that an early (≤ 24 h) compared to a late diagnosis (> 24 h) in benign esophageal perforations, particularly in IEP, is associated with improved clinical outcome.

Short-Course External Beam Radiotherapy Versus Brachytherapy for Palliation of Dysphagia in Esophageal Cancer: A Matched Comparison of Two Prospective Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Short-course external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and intraluminal brachytherapy are both accepted treatments for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. We compared the effects of both treatments from two prospective studies. METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with metastasized or otherwise incurable esophageal cancer requiring palliation of dysphagia from September 2016 to March 2019. Patients were treated with EBRT in five fractions of 4 Gy. Data were compared with all patients treated with a single brachytherapy dose of 12 Gy in the SIREC (Stent or Intraluminal Radiotherapy for inoperable Esophageal Cancer) trial, both between the original cohorts and between 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts. The primary end point was an improvement of dysphagia at 3 months without reintervention. The secondary end points included toxicity and time-to-effect. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients treated with EBRT and 93 patients who underwent brachytherapy were eligible for analysis. In the original cohorts, dysphagia improved after EBRT in 79% of patients compared with 64% after brachytherapy (p = 0.058). Propensity score matching resulted in 69 patients in each cohort well-balanced at baseline. Improvement of dysphagia was observed in 83% after EBRT versus 64% after brachytherapy (p = 0.048). In responding patients, improvement of dysphagia at 2 weeks was observed in 67% after EBRT compared with 35% after brachytherapy, and the maximum effect was reached after 4 weeks in 55% and 33%, respectively. Severe toxicity occurred in 3% of patients after EBRT compared with 13% after brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Short-course EBRT appears at least as effective as brachytherapy in the palliation of dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer.

Impact of multidisciplinary tumor board discussion on palliation of patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction cancer: a population-based study.

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.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes of endoscopic dilation in benign esophageal strictures: a long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Low-Dose Versus High-Dose Radiation Therapy for the Palliation of Dysphagia From Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

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 < .001). 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.

Through-the-scope placement of a fully covered metal stent for palliation of malignant dysphagia: a prospective cohort study (with video).

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.).

Esophageal Stenting in Clinical Practice: an Overview.

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.