Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a critical complication occurring in patients with advanced malignancy. Current treatments are both surgical and non-surgical, the latter including medical, endoscopic, and percutaneous approaches. Surgery is still the treatment of choice for MBO. However, almost 50% of patients are unfit for surgery because of poor performance status. Given the high post-operative mortality rate and the frailty of MBO patients, the least invasive surgical intervention is recommended. Therefore, recent multidisciplinary recommendations have suggested considering less invasive interventions instead of palliative surgery. Medical therapy, aiming to alleviate symptoms, is usually only a part of the therapeutic strategy when managing patients with MBO. Percutaneous techniques, including both interventional radiology and endoscopic procedures, are safe and effective for symptom relief, but often do not allow oral diet resumption. Endoscopic techniques are achieving a more relevant role for MBO treatment, as supported by the widening of the indication to colonic intraluminal stenting in the latest update of the European guidelines. Current data support the use of colonic stenting as both a bridge to surgery and the definitive treatment of malignant colonic obstruction. The development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided anastomotic techniques may offer the possibility of widening its applications to endoscopic treatment of MBO, allowing stenosis to be overcome, and reestablishing the continuity of the gastrointestinal tract in small bowel obstructions as well. The introduction of new interventional endoscopic techniques and their progressive diffusion will add the possibility to adopt minimally invasive solutions to treat a critical condition such as MBO.

Since self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) were first introduced in acute colon cancer obstruction, the increased rate of primary anastomosis and improved quality of life following SEMS placement have been clearly shown. However, it was demonstrated that SEMS are associated with higher recurrence rates. Although several trials have shown that overall and disease-free survival in patients following SEMS placement is similar with patients undergoing emergency surgery, obstruction and a high incidence of recurrence imposed many concerns. The optimal time interval from SEMS to surgery is still a matter of debate. Some studies have recommended a time interval of ~2 weeks between SEMS insertion and elective surgery. A prolonged interval of time from SEMS insertion to elective surgery and the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been proposed. SEMS-NAC might have advantages for improving the surgical and long-term survival outcomes of patients with acute colon cancer obstruction, which is an optional approach in the management of acute colon cancer obstruction.

Extracellular matrix (ECM) is an important component of tumor microenvironment, and its abnormal expression promotes tumor formation, progression and metastasis.

Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was used to identify ECM-related hub genes based on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) colon adenocarcinoma (COAD) data. COAD clinical samples were used to verify the expression of potential biomarkers in tumor tissues, and siRNA was used to explore the role of potential biomarkers in cell proliferation and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT).

Three potential biomarkers (LEP, NGF and PCOLCE2) related to prognosis of COAD patients were identified and used to construct ERGPI. Immunohistochemical analysis of clinical samples showed that the three potential biomarkers were highly expressed in tumor tissues of COAD patients. Knockdown of LEP, NGF or PCOLCE2 inhibited COAD cell proliferation and EMT. Dictamnine inhibited tumor cell growth by binding to these three potential biomarkers based on molecular docking and transplanted tumor model.

The three biomarkers can provide new ideas for the diagnosis and targeted therapy of COAD patients.

Patients presenting with acute colonic obstruction are usually evaluated in the emergency department and multiple specialties are involved in the patients' management. Pre-treatment evaluation is essential in order to establish the correct endoscopic indication for stent implantation. Contrast-enhanced imaging could allow the exclusion of benign causes of colonic obstruction and evaluation of the length of malignant stricture. Endoscopic stenting is the gold standard of treatment for palliative indications whereas there are still concerns about its use as a bridge to surgery. Different meta-analyses showed that stenting as a bridge to surgery improves short-term surgical outcomes but has no role in improving long-term outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is also essential in patients that may be started on or are currently receiving antiangiogenic agents because endoscopic stenting may increase the risk of perforation. Evidence in the literature is weak and based on retrospective data. Here we report on how to correctly evaluate a patient with acute colonic malignant obstruction in collaboration with other essential specialists including a radiologist, surgeon and oncologist, and how to optimize the technique of endoscopic stenting.

Large bowel obstruction is a serious event that occurs in approximately 25% of all intestinal obstructions. It is attributed to either benign, malignant, functional (pseudo-obstruction), or mechanical conditions. Benign etiologies of colonic obstructions include colon volvulus, anastomotic strictures, radiation injury, ischemia, inflammatory processes such as Crohn's disease, diverticulitis, bezoars, and intussusception.

Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) can be used to treat malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Guidewire insertion to the proximal site of MCO is the most important step for SEMS placement. However, some patients cannot undergo guidewire insertion because of total obstruction or location at anatomically challenging areas. We report a guidewire insertion technique using an ultrathin endoscope (UTE) in patients with MCO in whom conventional SEMS insertion failed.

This study was a retrospective cohort study conducted at three academic centers in Korea. The medical records of 956 consecutive patients who underwent SEMS placement during 2012-2021 were analyzed. After failing guidewire insertion using a colonoscope, a UTE was inserted. Guidewire insertion was done through the working channel of the UTE. Following guidewire insertion, the endoscope was removed from the patient. While removing the endoscope, the guidewire was advanced to be located at the originally inserted site. Then, the colonoscope was inserted over the guidewire, and SEMS was replaced.

Conventional SEMS insertion failed in 75 patients. Of these, guidewire insertion using a UTE was tried in 59 patients. The rate of technical success was 91.5% (54/59). Considering all patients, the overall technical success rate of SEMS placement was 97.8% (935/956). This technique increased the technical success rate by 5.6% among the total cohort.

The UTE facilitated guidewire insertion and enhanced the overall success rate for SEMS placement. In addition, this technique can be used as a rescue method when guidewire insertion fails using a colonoscope.

Evidence of the efficacy and safety of colorectal stent placement for palliation remains insufficient. This single-arm, prospective, multicenter study with a WallFlex enteral colonic stent included 200 consecutive patients with malignant large bowl obstruction in the palliation cohort. The technical and clinical success, as well as stent patency and complications as short-term (≤7 days) and long-term (>7 days) outcomes, of high axial force self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement was evaluated. The technical and clinical success rates were 98.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Non-recurrent colorectal obstruction at 1 year was 63.9%, and 71.2% of the patients remained free of recurrent colorectal obstruction until death or the last follow-up. Fifty-six patients (28.0%) received chemotherapy, and five patients were administered bevacizumab after stent placement. The overall complication rate was 47%, including four (2.0%) early-onset and ten (5.0%) late-onset perforations, mostly due to stent-edge injury. Only the use of a long SEMS was a risk factor for perforation. In conclusion, endoscopic colorectal stenting using high axial force SEMS is an effective and safe procedure for palliation in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction. However, care should be taken to avoid perforation at the stent edge when using a long SEMS.

The relative utility of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant colon obstruction (MCO) due to extra-colonic malignancy (ECM) versus intra-colonic malignancy (ICM) is understudied.

A systematic search was done from inception-April 2021 to identify reports of safety and efficacy of SEMS insertion for the treatment of MCO-ECM versus MCO-ICM. A meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis to compute relative risks (RR), and mean differences (MD) was performed. Subgroup analyses and influence analyses were conducted. The certainty in estimates of effect(s) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

Eight non-randomized studies were identified; 46% (39-53%) and 63% (59-67%) of patients in the ECM and ICM groups were male. Most obstructions were in the rectosigmoid colon in both ECM and ICM groups. SEMS insertion in MCO-ECM was associated with an increased risk of technical failure compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.92; 1.13-7.54; Certainty: Very Low). Risk of clinical failure of SEMS was higher in MCO-ECM compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.88; 1.58-2.52; Certainty: Very Low). The risk of clinical failure remained significant throughout the influence analysis, as well as on subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events or luminal perforation with SEMS insertion among patients with MCO-ECM and MCO-ICM. On influence analysis, removal of one study unveiled a significant increase in the risk of luminal perforation in MCO-ECM (RR 3.22; 1.44-7.19; p = 0.004).

SEMS for MCO-ECM may have a technical success rate comparable to or questionably worse than MCO-ICM, with low certainty in estimate of effects. SEMS deployment in MCO-ECM carries a higher risk of clinical failure, with a questionably higher risk of luminal perforation.

Although a large-caliber endoscope (LCE) is indispensable for through-the-scope placement of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) in patients with malignant colonic obstruction (MCO), inaccessibility of the target obstructing lesion (TOL) by the endoscope is a significant cause of unsuccessful procedures. We herein present a novel salvage procedure when the TOL is not directly accessible by an LCE in conditions such as coexisting peritoneal carcinomatosis involving the colon. The salvage procedure, termed over-the-catheter endoscope replacement (OCER), starts with an ultraslim endoscope suitable for deep insertion beyond a tortuous colon for traversing a guidewire through the TOL. The ultraslim endoscope is then withdrawn and replaced by an LCE through the following steps. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography catheter is preloaded in the LCE, the catheter alone is passed over the guidewire already traversed through the TOL, and the LCE is navigated over the catheter as far as possible toward the TOL to deliver the SEMS delivery system in a standard through-the-scope manner or further in an over-the-wire manner even if LCE insertion is incomplete. Among the 165 patients with MCO who underwent stenting during our study period, OCER led to successful procedures in all nine patients whose TOLs were initially inaccessible because of colon-involving peritoneal carcinomatosis. By utilizing the functions of distinctive endoscopes in a unique and complementary way, OCER can be a practical salvage option for challenging cases of MCO that are highly prone to unsuccessful palliation by conventional SEMS placement.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

The current study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of self-expandable metallic stent placement among patients with extracolonic malignancy and those with colorectal cancer. Patient information, technical and clinical success rates and complication rates were compared between patients with colorectal cancer and extracolonic malignancy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the time elapsed before the onset of complications. Risk factors for re-obstruction in patients with self-expandable metallic stents were evaluated by multivariate analysis. A total of 68 patients who underwent self-expandable metallic stent placement at Saiseikai Niigata Hospital between January 2012 and September 2019 were included. The clinical success rate was significantly different between the colorectal cancer (96.6%) and extracolonic malignancy (66.7%) groups (P=0.01). The incidence of complications was significantly higher in the extracolonic malignancy group (66.7%) than in the colorectal cancer group (25.4%; P=0.02). Additionally, the time elapsed before the onset of complications was shorter in the extracolonic malignancy group than in the colorectal cancer group (P=0.0008). Risk factors for re-obstruction were higher in the extracolonic malignancy group [odds ratio, 7.76 (1.02-57.2)] than in the palliative stent placement group [odds ratio, 5.45 (1.01-29.5); P=0.04]. In extracolonic malignancy, self-expandable metallic stent placement was associated with lower clinical success rates and increased risk of complications. The time elapsed before the onset of complications was short, and extracolonic malignancy was a risk factor for re-obstruction, suggesting that the placement of self-expandable metallic stents for malignant colorectal obstruction in extracolonic malignancy is not optimal.

Placement of a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) in patients presenting with an acute colorectal obstruction (ACO) may obviate emergency surgery (ES), potentially effectively palliating incurable tumors, acting as a bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with operable or potentially operable tumors and achieving effective decompression of other ACO. We present our experience with SEMS insertion by colorectal surgeons without fluoroscopic monitoring for ACO especially for acute malignant colorectal obstruction (AMCO) for nearly a 14-year period (2007-2020).

To explore the safety and effectiveness of SEMS insertion in the management of ACO by colorectal surgeons using a two-person approach colonoscopy without fluoroscopic monitoring.

We reviewed the medical records of patients retrospectively to identify all patients presenting to our unit with ACO especially with AMCO who had stenting carried out to achieve colonic decompression. All 434 procedures were performed by colorectal surgeons using a two-person approach colonoscopy without fluoroscopic monitoring.

The overall technique success rate and clinic success rate by SEMS insertion were 428/434 (98.6%) and 412/434 (94.9%). The overall incidence of complications by SEMS insertion was 19/434 (4.4%). The complications included clinical perforation (6/434, 1.4%); stent migration (2/434, 0.5%), 1 of which re-stent; stent detachment (fell off) (3/434, 0.7%), none of them with re-stent; stool impaction (6/434, 1.4%), 1 of which re-stent; and abdominal or anal pain (2/434, 0.5%). There was no hemorrhage in any of the 434 patients.

SEMS insertion is a relatively safe and effective technique for colonic decompression in dealing with ACO as either a BTS or as a palliative measure. It is also a solution to other causes of ACO such as recurrent tumor, benign diseases, or extra-luminal compression. Therefore, ES was largely avoided.

Background and study aims  Management of malignant gastrointestinal obstruction (MGIO) is more challenging in the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Outcomes data to guide the management of MGIO with PC are lacking. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and adverse events between endoscopic and surgical palliation and identify predictors of stent success in patients with MGIO with PC. Patients and methods  Consecutive inpatients with MGIO with PC between 2000 and 2018 who underwent palliative surgery or enteral stenting were included. Clinical success was defined as relief of obstructive symptoms. Results  Fifty-seven patients with enteral stenting and 40 with palliative surgery were compared. The two groups did not differ in rates of technical success, 30-day mortality, or recurrence. Clinical success from a single intervention (63.2 % versus 95 %), luminal patency duration (27 days vs. 145 days), and survival length (148 days vs. 336 days) favored palliative surgery (all P  < 0.05) but the patients in the surgery group had a trend toward better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status. The rate of adverse events (AEs) (10.5 % vs. 50 %), the severity of AEs, and length of hospital stay (4.5 days vs. 9 days) favored enteral stenting ( P  < 0.05). The need for more than one stent was associated with a higher likelihood of stent failure. Conclusions  Our study suggests that enteral stenting is safer and associated with a shorter hospital stay than palliative surgery, although unlike other MGIOs, clinical success is lower in MGIO with PC. Identification of the right candidates and potential predictors of clinical success in ECOG-matched large-scale studies is needed to validate these results.

Previous studies evaluating self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for management of malignant extrinsic colon obstruction have yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the efficacy of uncovered SEMS for extrinsic colon malignancy (ECM) versus intrinsic colon malignancy (ICM).

Retrospective review of all patients referred for colonic SEMS at a tertiary cancer center between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Primary outcome measures were technical success, clinical success, intervention rate, and overall survival.

138 patients with ECM and 119 patients with ICM underwent attempted stent placement. The rectum and/or sigmoid colon was the most common stricture site. Technical success was lower in the ECM group [86% vs 96% (p = .009)]. Clinical success was lower in the ECM group both at 7 days [82% vs 95% (p = .004)] and at 90 days [60% vs 86% (p < .001)]. Subsequent intervention was required more frequently [44% vs 35%; p = .23] and earlier [median 9 vs 132 days; p < .001] in the ECM group. Median overall survival in the ECM group was 92 vs 167 days. Among predictive variables analyzed, the ECM group had a higher frequency of peritoneal metastasis (87% vs 32%; p < .001), multifocal strictures with requirement for multiple stents (20% vs 6%; p = .002), sharp angulated strictures (39% vs 25%; p = .04) , and radiation therapy (21% vs 10%; p = .02).

Colonic SEMS for ECM is associated with lower technical and clinical success with earlier intervention rates compared with ICM. Our findings can be used to better inform patients and referring providers as well as guide new stent design to enhance efficacy in this population.

Endoscopic stenting with self-expandable metallic stents is widely accepted for the treatment of malignant colorectal obstruction. Generally, stenting is performed as a bridge-to-surgery for primary colorectal cancer (CRC). Furthermore, palliative colonic stenting is performed for extraparenteral malignant tumors (EPMTs). However, predictive factors for improving clinical outcomes after colonic stenting for EPMTs remain unclear. This study is aimed at evaluating patients with EPMTs who underwent colonic stenting and investigating factors influencing clinical improvement after the stenting procedure. Twenty-one patients with colorectal obstruction by EPMTs were treated using self-expandable metallic stents over a period of 8 years. We divided the enrolled patients into the clinically improved and nonimproved groups after colonic stenting. Variables, including age; sex; type of primary cancer; serum albumin level; location of the obstruction; stent type, length, and diameter; prior chemotherapy treatment; ascites; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS); technical and clinical success rates; stent-related adverse events; and mortality rates, were evaluated. Technical failure was not observed in all cases. Clinical success, defined as the passage of stool and improvement in the colorectal obstruction scoring system (CROSS) without adverse events, was observed in the 14 patients. Univariate analyses revealed no significant differences in factors other than PS before stenting (P = 0.04) between the improved and nonimproved groups. Colonic stenting for EPMTs was effective. PS may be an independent risk factor of clinical outcomes after stenting.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of stent placement for the palliative treatment of colorectal obstruction in patients with extracolonic malignancy (ECM) versus those with primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and to identify the risk factors for stent failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Between January 2005 and December 2017, a total of 85 patients underwent stent placement for the palliative treatment of inoperable malignant colorectal obstructions caused by ECM (n = 56) or CRC (n = 29). Technical and clinical success, reintervention rates, and stent patency were compared between the two groups. Predictive factors associated with stent failure were identified. RESULTS. Stent placement was technically successful in 54 patients with ECM (96.4%) and 27 patients with CRC (93.1%) (p = 0.60). The proportion of patients with ECM who required reintervention was greater than that of patients with CRC (20.4% vs 3.7%, respectively; p = 0.04); however, they had a marginally lower clinical success rate (88.9% vs 100.0%, respectively; p = 0.07). The 6- and 12-month stent patency rates were 64.2% and 22.0%, respectively, in patients with ECM and 68.4% and 31.3%, respectively, in patients with CRC (p = 0.89). Long obstructions (hazard ratio, 1.40) and multiple obstructions (hazard ratio, 4.03) were independent factors associated with stent failure. CONCLUSION. Stent placement for the palliative treatment of colorectal obstruction is less effective and more frequently requires reintervention in patients with ECM than in patients with CRC. Long obstructions and multiple obstructions were associated with stent failure.

Introduction: Although more than two decades are already passed from the first description of this technique, the debate remains open on the role of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement in the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). According to most recent data, SEMS placement is considered a safe and effective alternative treatment as a bridge to surgery(BTS). In addition, stent placement should be considered as primary option for palliative treatment of obstructing cancer.Areas covered: Current status, indication, technique, oncological outcomes, advantages, and risks of SEMS placement in MBO were reviewed.Expert commentary: The placement of colonic SEMS for palliation and for BTS in patients with MBO has been increasingly reported and it seems to have several advantages over emergency surgery. Substantial concerns of tumor seeding following SEMS placement, especially in case of perforation, have been raised in numerous studies. Actually, no significant differences are reported in oncologic long-term survival between patients undergoing stent placement as a BTS and those undergoing emergency surgery. Considering all the mentioned factors, indication for colorectal stenting should be evaluated only in highly specialized centers, in the context of multidisciplinary approach where risks and benefits of stenting are carefully weighed, especially in the BTS setting.

According to the American Cancer Society and Colorectal Cancer Statistics 2017, colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death in the world in 2018. Previous studies demonstrated that 8%-29% of patients with primary CRC present malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). In the past, emergency surgery has been the primary treatment for MCO, although morbidity and surgical mortality rates are higher in these settings than in elective procedures. In the 1990s, self-expanding metal stents appeared and was a watershed in the treatment of patients in gastrointestinal surgical emergencies. The studies led to high expectations because the use of stents could prevent surgical intervention, such as colostomy, leading to lower morbidity and mortality, possibly resulting in higher quality of life. This review was designed to provide present evidence of the indication, technique, outcomes, benefits, and risks of these treatments in acute MCO through the analysis of previously published studies and current guidelines.

Endoscopic stenting proved to be a safe alternative to surgery for malignant intra-abdominal gastrointestinal obstruction. Although high technical success rates have been reported, some patients do not experience relief in symptoms.

This study aimed to analyse the factors predicting the effectiveness of stent placement in patients with gastrointestinal obstruction.

A retrospective study was carried out including 160 patients who underwent palliative stenting for intra-abdominal obstruction in a tertiary centre from December 2012 to July 2017. Technical and clinical success, stent dysfunction and adverse events were analysed.

The rate of technical success was 98%. The rate of early clinical success was 69 and 81% in upper and lower gastrointestinal obstructions, respectively (P=0.107). In the upper tract, obstruction caused by carcinomatosis was the only independent factor predicting early and late clinical failure [odds ratio (OR): 9.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.5-38.4, P=0.001 and OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.8-31.9, P=0.006, respectively]. In the colon, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of at least 3 was an independent factor for early clinical failure (OR: 29.8, 95% CI: 1.9-464.9, P=0.002) and obstruction caused by carcinomatosis was an independent factor for late clinical failure (OR: 14.4, 95% CI: 1.7-119.6, P=0.013). Perforation occurred in 4 patients (2.5%) and stent dysfunction occurred in 15% of patients (4% stent migration; 9% restenosis). Carcinomatosis was a risk factor for perforation (P=0.039) and migration was higher with shorter 6 cm stents (P=0.044).

Stents are effective and safe for palliation of intra-abdominal obstruction. Carcinomatosis predicts an unfavourable clinical outcome. Palliative stenting as an option should be weighed carefully in these patients.