Observational study reveals median survival of 4 months in oesophageal cancer patients receiving SEMS, indicating need for further intervention.
Introduction The present study sought to examine the outcomes of patients with oesophageal cancer who underwent insertion of a self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) for palliation of malignant dysphagia. Methods Consecutive patients with locally advanced and metastatic oesophageal cancer who underwent SEMS insertion for the palliation of malignant dysphagia at our institution, between 1st of December 2022 and 1st of September 2024, were assessed for inclusion. Data collected included age, sex, performance status, histological subtype, cancer stage and the incidence and indication of repeat endoscopic palliative procedure. Results Ninety-nine patients were included. 75% (n=74) of patients were male and 66% (n=65) were ≥70 years of age. Median survival was 4 months (2-7). 69% (n=68) of patients were good performance status (ECOG-PS 0/1). 63% (n=62) of patients had an adenocarcinoma and 47% (n=46) had metastatic disease. 43% (n=43) of patients underwent a further endoscopic palliative procedure. The median time to re-intervention was 4 months (2-7). 72% (n=31) of patients had a further SEMS inserted and 28% (n=12) underwent endoscopic palliation using another modality. Reasons for repeat procedure included stent migration (n=12) and tumour overgrowth (n=31). The incidence of repeat endoscopic palliative procedure was significantly associated with sex (p<0.05) and tumour subtype (p<0.05), but not with age (p=0.071), performance status (p=0.623) or clinical cancer stage (p=0.690). Conclusions Nearly half of patients with oesophageal cancer who underwent the insertion of a SEMS for malignant dysphagia required further intervention prior to their death. The need for further intervention was significantly associated male sex and adenocarcinoma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leadbitter et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: