Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Online first

Split Viewer

Online first

Clinical Outcomes of Secondary Duodenal Self-Expandable Metallic Stenting for Duodenal Stent Dysfunction in Patients with Malignant Duodenal Obstruction: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Hoonsub So1 , Hyun Don Joo2 , Tae Jun Song3 , Sung Woo Ko4 , Ho Seung Lee3 , Sung Hyun Cho3 , Dongwook Oh3 , Sung Yong Han5 , Dong Uk Kim5 , Dong-Wan Seo3

1Department of Internal Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea; 2Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Guri, Korea; 3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea; 5Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Correspondence to: Tae Jun Song
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6156-8746
E-mail drsong@amc.seoul.kr

Hoonsub So and Hyun Don Joo contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Received: January 9, 2024; Revised: March 10, 2024; Accepted: March 13, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver.

Published online May 22, 2024

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims: Malignant duodenal obstruction has become more common with the development of palliative therapies.The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) are comparable to those of surgical gastrojejunostomy or duodenal stenting. However, EUS-GJ is technically challenging. Duodenal self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is popular; however, obstructions are common. Duodenal SEMS obstruction can be managed with the insertion of a second SEMS in a stent-in-stent manner. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes of secondary duodenal SEMS placement in patients with malignant duodenal obstruction.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent secondary duodenal stent insertion for duodenal stent dysfunction between January 2016 and December 2021. The primary outcome was stent patency. The secondary outcomes were clinical success, factors associated with dysfunction, patient survival, and adverse events.
Results: A total of 109 patients were included. The mean age was 64.4±11.2 years, and 63 patients (57.8%) were male. Ninety-two patients (84.4%) had pancreaticobiliary cancer. Clinical success was achieved in 94 cases (86.2%). Twenty-three patients experienced stent dysfunction with 231 days of median stent patency (95% confidence interval [CI], 169 to not available). After a multivariable Cox hazard analysis of stent patency, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.13; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.81; p=0.010) and the first stent patency ≥6 months (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.95; p=0.050) remained significant associated factors. Adverse events occurred in five patients (4.6%).
Conclusions: Secondary duodenal stent insertion is a viable option for first duodenal stent obstruction. Further comparative studies involving surgery or EUS-GJ for obstructed duodenal stents are warranted.

Keywords: Duodenum, Self expandable metallic stent, Salvage

Duodenal obstruction due to malignant pancreaticobiliary and duodenal cancers has become more common with the development of chemotherapy and other palliative therapies. Historically, duodenal obstruction has been known to occur in 2% to 25% of patients without surgery. However, a recent study reported nearly twice the obstruction rate (38%).1 Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is reported to be a marker for poor survival, regardless of the type of cancer,2 and its management is important for the patient’s quality of life and further management of the malignancy. The palliative management of GOO includes duodenal self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement, surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ), or endoscopic ultrasound-guided GJ (EUS-GJ).3,4 A meta-analysis showed the superiority of surgical GJ for patients with a long life expectancy and good performance compared to duodenal stenting.5 The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends surgical GJ in patients with a life expectancy of >6 months and a good performance status.6 However, many patients are not suitable for surgical approaches, and even with a good performance status and life expectancy of >6 months, many endoscopists prefer duodenal SEMS insertion. EUS-GJ has shown comparable clinical outcomes to other methods but has technical barriers with instrument and cost issues.7,8

Duodenal stenting has several advantages over other management techniques. This skill is intuitive, and the time to the resumption of oral intake is shorter than that involving surgical GJ.6 It also requires a shorter hospital stay and provides a lower procedure-related bleeding rate compared to other techniques. However, its disadvantage is the high reintervention rate.9 The reintervention rate of duodenal stents is approximately 20%.10

The management of obstructed duodenal stents includes secondary duodenal SEMS placement by stent-in-stent method, surgical GJ, and EUS-GJ. Similar to the first strategy, the management strategy here should be selected based on the patient’s life expectancy, performance, and endoscopist’s preference. However, information regarding the management of duodenal SEMS obstruction is insufficient. Previous studies regarding secondary stent insertion using the stent-in-stent method mostly included gastric cancers.11-15 Sasaki et al.15 included more patients with pancreatic cancer; however, the number of patients included in their study was small (n=16). Therefore, we aimed to review the clinical results of secondary duodenal stent insertion for salvaging obstructed duodenal SEMS in pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies.

1. Patients

We reviewed the databases of two tertiary hospitals (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, and Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea) for patients who underwent secondary duodenal stent insertion for the management of obstructed duodenal stents in cases of pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies between January 2016 and December 2021. We excluded: (1) patients diagnosed with GOO caused by gastric cancer, considering its location and disease characteristics; (2) patients who experienced obstruction of the first stent within 1 week, as we assessed them as having clinical failure of the first stent; and (3) patients with limited information. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of each hospital (IRB numbers: Asan Medical Center 2023-1209, Pusan National University Hospital 2303-041-125). Written informed consent was waived.

2. Procedure

All procedures were performed in a stent-in-stent manner by four experienced endoscopists (T.J.S., O.D.W., S.Y.H., and D.U.K.). Computed tomography was performed before the procedures. The causes of the first stent obstruction were evaluated using endoscopy and radiocontrast medium injections under fluoroscopy. The obstruction site was negotiated with a guidewire, and an SEMS was deployed under fluoroscopic guidance. The length and type (uncovered or partially covered) of the SEMS were selected at the endoscopist's discretion. If the stent could not cover the entire stricture, an additional stent was deployed. All stents had a diameter of 20 mm and lengths of 6, 8, 10, or 12 cm. They were manufactured by Taewoong Medical, Seoul, Korea, or Standard Sci-Tech Inc., Seoul, Korea.

3. Assessment of clinical outcomes

The primary outcome was stent patency. Data regarding the baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, diagnosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, prior biliary drainage, prior chemotherapy before stent insertion, serum albumin before stent insertion, and first stent patency) and clinical outcomes (technical success, clinical success, obstruction site, adverse event, chemotherapy after stent insertion, stent patency, cause of stent dysfunction, and overall survival) were collected. Stent patency was calculated from the insertion date to the date of reintervention. In cases where there was no evidence of stent dysfunction during the follow-up period, the duration of stent patency was considered to be equal to the survival time of the patient, and they were censored. The prior stent patency was calculated and classified as less or greater than 180 days, as the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline suggests a 6-month cutoff for choosing between duodenal stenting or surgical GJ. We postulated that the duration of the secondary duodenal stent might be indicated by the preceding stent patency. A prolonged initial stent patency could suggest a slower progression of the tumor or a more favorable response to chemotherapy, potentially resulting in an extended secondary stent patency. Conversely, a shorter primary stent patency might indicate the aggressive nature of the tumor or a suboptimal response to chemotherapy. The obstruction site was classified into above-ampulla, ampulla-involved, and below-ampulla. Technical success was reached when the secondary stent successfully covered the stricture by tumor ingrowth or overgrowth. The gastric outlet obstruction scoring system (GOOSS) was used to assess the severity of duodenal obstruction before and after secondary stent insertion, and clinical success was defined as any improvement of the GOOSS score. Adverse events were recorded based on a lexicon for endoscopic adverse events.16

4. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, including means or medians, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges, were used for continuous variables, as appropriate. Categorical parameters are expressed as frequencies and proportions and were compared using the chi-square or Fisher exact test. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox hazard regression test to estimate the time-to-event data. Multivariable Cox regression was performed to identify factors associated with patency and overall survival. Using a backward elimination, variables with p-value <0.2 on univariable regression were included as covariates for multivariable Cox regression. Outcomes are reported as percentages with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All reported p-values were two-sided, and a p‐value of <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. The data were analyzed using the R program, version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org).

1. Patient characteristics

During the study period, 694 cases of duodenal stenting were performed at Asan Medical Center and Pusan National University Hospital. Among those cases, a total of 128 patients (108 Asan Medical Center and 20 Pusan National University Hospital) underwent secondary duodenal SEMS placement to salvage an obstructed duodenal SEMS between January 2016 and December 2021. Eighteen patients were excluded for the following reasons: gastric cancer (n=4), first stent patency ≤7 days (n=9), and limited information (n=5). Among the 110 patients, secondary stent insertion failed in one. Therefore, 109 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 64.4±11.2 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 63:46. The most common diagnosis was pancreatic cancer (n=70), followed by biliary cancer (n=22), duodenal cancer (n=5), and other metastatic cancers (n=12). Other metastatic cancer cases included hepatocellular carcinoma (n=3), breast cancer (n=2), lung cancer (n=1), liposarcoma (n=1), colon cancer (n=1), renal cancer (n=1), cancer of unknown primary (n=1), bladder cancer (n=1), and neuroendocrine cancer (n=1). The baseline characteristics, including the ECOG performance status, prior biliary drainage, prior chemotherapy, serum albumin level before the procedure, and first stent patency, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Included Patients

CharacteristicValue (n=109)
Age, yr64.4±11.2
Sex
Male63 (57.8)
Female46 (42.2)
Primary cancer
Pancreatic cancer70 (64.2)
Biliary cancer22 (20.2)
Duodenal cancer5 (4.6)
Other metastatic cancers*12 (11.0)
Cause of the first stent dysfunction
Tumor ingrowth69 (63.3)
Tumor overgrowth40 (36.7)
ECOG performance status
153 (48.6)
235 (32.1)
317 (15.6)
44 (3.7)
Prior biliary drainage80 (73.4)
Prior chemotherapy82 (75.2)
Albumin, g/dL2.6±0.5
First stent patency, day152.1±158.0
First stent patency <180 day32 (29.4)

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

*Other metastatic cancers included hepatocellular carcinoma (n=3), lung cancer (n=1), liposarcoma (n=1), breast cancer (n=2), colon cancer (n=1), renal cancer (n=1), cancer of unknown primary (n=1), bladder cancer (n=1), and neuroendocrine cancer (n=1).



2. Technical and clinical outcomes of secondary duodenal SEMS placement

Technical success was achieved in 109 out of 110 patients (99.1%). In one patient, the procedure failed because the guidewire could not be placed through a severe long tight stricture. EUS-GJ was performed for the patient. Among 109 patients with successful secondary stenting, clinical success was observed in 94 (86.2%) (Fig. 1). Out of 109 patients, 95 (87.2%) achieved success with a single stent, while the remaining 14 required multiple stents. Specifically, 13 patients required two stents, and one patient required three stents to cover the stricture. The distribution of the GOOSS scores before the procedure was as follows: 0 (n=39), 1 (n=39), and 2 (n=31). The distribution of the GOOSS scores after the procedure was as follows: 0 (n=5), 1 (n=12), 2 (n=46), and 3 (n=46). Uncovered stents and partially covered stents were used in 65 (59.6%) and 44 (40.4%) cases, respectively. Adverse events occurred in five (4.6%) patients, and these included cholangitis (n=2), pancreatitis (n=1), perforation (n=1), and bleeding (n=1) (Table 2). They occurred within a week after stent insertion. Cholangitis was managed with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. All adverse events were successfully managed conservatively. Twenty-three patients experienced a stent dysfunction. The overall median stent patency was 231 days (95% CI, 169 to not available) (Fig. 2). Stent dysfunction was managed with additional stent insertion. The overall survival was 90 days (95% CI, 74 to 125) (Fig. 3).

Figure 1.Flowchart regarding this study. SEMS, self-expandable metallic stent.

Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier curve for the patency of the secondary duodenal stent.

Figure 3.Kaplan-Meier curve for patient survival after secondary duodenal stenting.

Table 2. Technical and Clinical Outcomes of Secondary Duodenal Stenting for Duodenal Stent Obstruction (n=109)

OutcomeValue
Technical success rate, No. (%)109/110 (99.1)
Clinical success rate, No. (%)94 (86.2)
Pre-GOOSS score, 0/1/2/339/39/31/0
Post-GOOSS score, 0/1/2/35/12/46/46
Location, No. (%)
Above ampulla28 (25.7)
Ampulla involved49 (45.0)
Beyond ampulla32 (29.4)
Stent type, No. (%)
Uncovered65 (59.6)
Partially covered44 (40.4)
Adverse event, No. (%)5 (4.6)
Cholangitis2
Pancreatitis1
Perforation1
Bleeding1
Stent patency, median (95% CI), day231 (169–NA)
Cause of stent dysfunction, No. (%)23 (21.1)
Ingrowth14
Overgrowth7
Migration2
Overall survival, median (IQR), day90 (74–125)

GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; CI, confidence interval; NA, not available; IQR, interquartile range.



3. Factors related to clinical failure

Compared to the clinical success group, the clinical failure group (n=15) showed lower serum albumin level (2.3±0.3 g/dL vs 2.6±0.5 g/dL, p=0.007) and a higher ECOG score (2.6±1.0 vs 1.6±0.8, p<0.001). Only 6.7% (1/15) of those who experienced clinical failure were able to receive chemotherapy after secondary duodenal stenting because, generally, cytotoxic chemotherapy is not recommended for decompensated states (ECOG scale >2). Patients who experienced clinical failure showed significantly shorter survival than those who experienced clinical success (28 days, 95% CI [13 to 74] vs 101 days, 95% CI [84 to 138]; p<0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3. Factors Related to Clinical Failure

FactorClinical failure (n=15)Clinical success (n=94)p-value
Age, yr69.3±9.163.6±11.30.066
Male sex7 (46.7)56 (59.6)0.510
Pancreatic cancer11 (73.3)59 (62.8)0.615
Chemotherapy after procedure1 (6.7)34 (36.2)0.048
GOOSS before procedure1.1±0.80.9±0.80.469
Albumin, g/dL2.3±0.32.6±0.50.007
ECOG performance status2.6±1.01.6±0.8<0.001
Survival after procedure, day28 (13–74)101 (84–138)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD, number (%), or median (95% CI).

GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.



4. Multivariable Cox hazard analysis for stent patency and survival

The multivariable Cox hazard analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with stent patency and survival. Age, sex, diagnosis (pancreatic cancer vs others), first stent patency (≥6 months vs <6 months), stent type (uncovered vs partially covered), location, GOOSS score before and after the procedure, albumin level before the procedure, and the type of chemotherapy after the secondary stent insertion were included in the analysis. Regarding stent patency, the ECOG performance status (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.38 to 4.39; p=0.024) and first stent patency ≥6 months (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.91; p=0.033) remained significant associated factors (Table 4). Regarding survival, the first stent patency ≥6 months, chemotherapy after the procedure, GOOSS score after the procedure, albumin level before the procedure, and ECOG performance remained significant associated factors (Table 5).

Table 4. Multivariable Cox Proportional Analysis for Patency

VariableUnivariable analysisMultivariable analysis
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Age0.98 (095–1.02)0.370
Male sex0.98 (0.43–2.25)0.974
Pancreatic cancer0.60 (0.26–1.38)0.232
First patency ≥6 mo0.31 (0.10–0.92)0.0340.30 (0.10–0.91)0.033
Partially covered stent1.55 (0.66–3.63)0.315
Chemotherapy after procedure0.84 (0.36–1.93)0.672
Location
Ampulla involvedReference
Above ampulla0.91 (0.33–2.47)0.800
Beyond ampulla0.80 (0. 28–2.31)0.700
GOOSS before procedure0.64 (0.38–1.10)0.110
GOOSS after procedure0.53 (0.27–1.04)0.653
Albumin0.82 (0.33–2.10)0.683
ECOG performance status2.31 (1.24–3.92)0.0072.46 (1.38–4.39)0.024

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.



Table 5. Multivariable Cox Proportional Analysis for Survival

VariableUnivariable analysisMultivariable analysis
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Age1.01 (0.99–1.02)0.603
Male sex1.03 (0.69–1.51)0.898
Pancreatic cancer0.84 (0.56–1.25)0.393
First patency ≥6 mo0.64 (0.42–0.99)0.0440.52 (0.33–0.81)0.004
Partially covered stent1.24 (0.83–1.83)0.290
Chemotherapy after procedure0.48 (0.32–0.73)<0.0010.68 (0.43–1.07)0.092
Location
Ampulla involvedReference
Above ampulla1.10 (0.68–1.77)0.694
Beyond ampulla0.94 (0.59–1.47)0.772
GOOSS before procedure0.90 (0.71–1.13)0.364
GOOSS after procedure0.35 (0.26–0.47)<0.0010.47 (0.33–0.65)<0.001
Albumin0.53 (0.34–0.83)0.0660.65 (0.41–1.03)0.066
ECOG performance status2.03 (1.59–2.58)<0.0011.53 (1.14–2.04)0.004

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.


Many studies have reported clinical data regarding first duodenal SEMS placement. However, those regarding the outcomes of secondary duodenal SEMS placement for obstructed duodenal SEMS are limited, especially for pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective study regarding secondary duodenal SEMS placement for obstructed duodenal SEMS in patients with pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies.

Our study showed a technical success rate of approximately 99.1%, which was comparable to that of the first stent insertion. A second stent insertion could be easier, as a previously inserted stent can help place the guidewire under fluoroscopy. Although secondary duodenal insertion was technically successful, it did not lead to total clinical success (86.2%). This means that although luminal patency is secured after secondary stent insertion, clinical success is not guaranteed. Several factors can contribute to clinical failures, such as advanced malignancy causing anorexia and peritoneal carcinomatosis affecting gastrointestinal motility.17 In our study, 15 patients with clinical failure had lower serum albumin levels and higher ECOG scores than those with clinical success. Their survival rates were significantly lower. We believe that these patients would not have benefited from surgery or EUS-GJ. Therefore, duodenal stenting is an attractive option for these patients, considering its cost or associated morbidity.

In our study, the dysfunction rate of the secondary duodenal stent was 21.1%, with a median patency of 231 days (95% CI, 169 to not available). The dysfunction rate appeared to be similar to that of the first stent. Patency was similar to the previous reports.11,12,18 The patency can be exaggerated due to short survival time (median 90 days). However, as median patency is longer than the median survival, secondary stenting would be a good option for obstructed duodenal stent. Stent ingrowth was the most common reason for dysfunction, and was managed with a third duodenal stent insertion.

We performed multivariable analysis to identify factors related to stent patency, and ECOG performance status and first stent patency ≥6 months remained significant factors. Currently the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline suggests surgical GJ for more than 6-month life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting also can achieve longer patency, and we thought the longer the previous stent functions, the longer the secondary stent will function, as this could imply better response to chemotherapy or slow progression. As the results imply, secondary stenting would be a good salvage option if the first stent functions long enough. If the patency of the first stent is short, it would be better to choose surgery or EUS-GJ.

We also analyzed factors related to patient survival. The first stent patency ≥6 months, chemotherapy after the procedure, GOOSS score after the procedure, albumin level before the procedure, and ECOG performance were significantly related to the patient’s survival. Albumin levels are usually low in states of malnutrition and inflammation and are known to be associated with cancer survival.19 These related factors imply that good performance status, better nutritional status, and chemotherapy are critical for patient survival. Therefore, optimal management of duodenal obstruction should be prioritized for patients with pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies to provide better nutritional support, which could lead to better performance status. Palliative chemotherapy should also be recommended if patients can tolerate longer survival after the secondary stenting.

Overall, adverse events occurred in five patients (4.6%). Cholangitis was the most common adverse event (n=2). Since most patients may have previously undergone biliary drainage, endoscopists should be aware of the risk of biliary obstruction. Even though the secondary stent was located across the ampulla in 45% of the patients, only one case of pancreatitis occurred. Previously inserted stents may decrease the risk of pancreatitis due to the remodeling of the tumor. Sasaki et al.15 reported perforation as a major complication (13.8%) of secondary gastroduodenal stenting, however, we observed this in one case, which was managed conservatively. Therefore, secondary duodenal stenting can be considered safe.

The choice between covered and uncovered stents is another issue associated with secondary duodenal stent insertion. According to a recent meta-analysis, covered stents were reported to show longer patency and a higher risk of migration than uncovered stents, and there was no statistical difference in the technical and clinical success rates and overall adverse events.20 Regarding secondary stenting, Park et al.12 reported that covered and uncovered stents were equally acceptable based on patency and adverse events. However, their study mostly included gastric cancer (90.9%), and the locations were mostly prepyloric lesions or anastomotic sites after subtotal gastrectomy (90.9%). Regarding primary stenting in pancreaticobiliary cancer, Woo et al.21 reported a higher complication rate with covered stents, primarily due to a significantly higher stent migration rate with a tendency for shorter patency compared with uncovered stents. In our study, we found no statistical differences in patency and adverse events between the two types of stents. Further study for optimal stent for secondary stenting should be carried in the future.

The strength of our study is the large number of patients with pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies. However, this study had several limitations. First, there was selection bias owing to the retrospective design. Moreover, the high technical success rate may have resulted from a selection bias. Second, different types of cancers and chemotherapies were included, which may have affected the stent patency and survival. Particularly, life expectancy influences the dysfunction rate. Since stent dysfunction is calculated from insertion to reintervention, individuals with a shorter remaining lifespan may contribute to a lower dysfunction rate. However, we believe that these data may provide real-world information. Third, different sizes, designs, numbers, and types of stents were used and the strategy of selection was not standardized; however, their effects on the results may not be significant. Fourth, safety might have been underestimated, as late adverse events (>14 days) could not be reliably distinguished from complications arising from tumor progression. In conclusion, secondary duodenal stent insertion is a viable option for first duodenal stent obstruction. Moreover, further comparative studies involving surgery or EUS-GJ for obstructed duodenal stents are warranted.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Study concept and design: T.J.S. Data acquisition: H.D.J., S.Y.H., D.U.K., H.S.L., S.H.C. Data analysis and interpretation: H.S., H.D.J. Drafting of the manuscripts: H.S., H.D.J. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: D.O., D.W.S. Statistical analysis: H.S., S.W.K. Study supervision: T.J.S. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

  1. Shah A, Fehmi A, Savides TJ. Increased rates of duodenal obstruction in pancreatic cancer patients receiving modern medical management. Dig Dis Sci 2014;59:2294-2298.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Oh SY, Edwards A, Mandelson M, et al. Survival and clinical outcome after endoscopic duodenal stent placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: comparison of pancreatic cancer and nonpancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:460-468.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Papanikolaou IS, Siersema PD. Gastric outlet obstruction: current status and future directions. Gut Liver 2022;16:667-675.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Cheung SLH, Teoh AYB. Optimal management of gastric outlet obstruction in unresectable malignancies. Gut Liver 2022;16:190-197.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Mintziras I, Miligkos M, Wächter S, Manoharan J, Bartsch DK. Palliative surgical bypass is superior to palliative endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;33:3153-3164.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Jue TL, Storm AC, et al; ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of benign and malignant gastroduodenal obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:309-322.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Iqbal U, Khara HS, Hu Y, et al. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2020;9:16-23.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Sánchez-Aldehuelo R, Subtil Iñigo JC, Martínez Moreno B, et al. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal self-expandable metal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: results from a nationwide multicenter retrospective study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:1012-1020.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Krishnamoorthi R, Bomman S, Benias P, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic duodenal stent versus endoscopic or surgical gastrojejunostomy to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2022;10:E874-E897.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Jung K, Ahn JY, Jung HY, et al. Outcomes of endoscopically inserted self-expandable metal stents in malignancy according to the type of stent and the site of obstruction. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4001-4010.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Jin EH, Kim SG, Seo JY, Im JP, Kim JS, Jung HC. Clinical outcomes of re-stenting in patients with stent malfunction in malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1372-1379.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Park JC, Park JJ, Cheoi K, et al. Clinical outcomes of secondary stent-in-stent self-expanding metal stent placement for primary stent malfunction in malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Dig Liver Dis 2012;44:999-1005.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Kim CG, Choi IJ, Lee JY, et al. Outcomes of second self-expandable metallic stent insertion for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Surg Endosc 2014;28:281-288.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Mo JW, Kim YM, Kim JH, Shin SY, Youn YH, Park H. Clinical outcomes after multiple self-expandable metallic stent placement using stent-in-stent technique for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e19432.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Sasaki T, Isayama H, Nakai Y, et al. Clinical outcomes of secondary gastroduodenal self-expandable metallic stent placement by stent-in-stent technique for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Dig Endosc 2015;27:37-43.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446-454.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Baldaque-Silva F. Stent-in-stent for malign obstruction: should we go back to a place where we were happy?. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2020;27:375-377.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Wei TH, Ye BW, Wu PS, et al. Outcomes of patients with malignant duodenal obstruction after receiving self-expandable metallic stents: a single center experience. PLoS One 2022;17:e0268920.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Gupta D, Lis CG. Pretreatment serum albumin as a predictor of cancer survival: a systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Nutr J 2010;9:69.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Tringali A, Costa D, Anderloni A, Carrara S, Repici A, Adler DG. Covered versus uncovered metal stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:1153-1163.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Woo SM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, et al. Comparison of uncovered and covered stents for the treatment of malignant duodenal obstruction caused by pancreaticobiliary cancer. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2031-2039.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

ahead

Gut and Liver

Published online May 22, 2024

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Clinical Outcomes of Secondary Duodenal Self-Expandable Metallic Stenting for Duodenal Stent Dysfunction in Patients with Malignant Duodenal Obstruction: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Hoonsub So1 , Hyun Don Joo2 , Tae Jun Song3 , Sung Woo Ko4 , Ho Seung Lee3 , Sung Hyun Cho3 , Dongwook Oh3 , Sung Yong Han5 , Dong Uk Kim5 , Dong-Wan Seo3

1Department of Internal Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea; 2Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Guri, Korea; 3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea; 5Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Correspondence to:Tae Jun Song
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6156-8746
E-mail drsong@amc.seoul.kr

Hoonsub So and Hyun Don Joo contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Received: January 9, 2024; Revised: March 10, 2024; Accepted: March 13, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims: Malignant duodenal obstruction has become more common with the development of palliative therapies.The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) are comparable to those of surgical gastrojejunostomy or duodenal stenting. However, EUS-GJ is technically challenging. Duodenal self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is popular; however, obstructions are common. Duodenal SEMS obstruction can be managed with the insertion of a second SEMS in a stent-in-stent manner. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes of secondary duodenal SEMS placement in patients with malignant duodenal obstruction.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent secondary duodenal stent insertion for duodenal stent dysfunction between January 2016 and December 2021. The primary outcome was stent patency. The secondary outcomes were clinical success, factors associated with dysfunction, patient survival, and adverse events.
Results: A total of 109 patients were included. The mean age was 64.4±11.2 years, and 63 patients (57.8%) were male. Ninety-two patients (84.4%) had pancreaticobiliary cancer. Clinical success was achieved in 94 cases (86.2%). Twenty-three patients experienced stent dysfunction with 231 days of median stent patency (95% confidence interval [CI], 169 to not available). After a multivariable Cox hazard analysis of stent patency, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.13; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.81; p=0.010) and the first stent patency ≥6 months (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.95; p=0.050) remained significant associated factors. Adverse events occurred in five patients (4.6%).
Conclusions: Secondary duodenal stent insertion is a viable option for first duodenal stent obstruction. Further comparative studies involving surgery or EUS-GJ for obstructed duodenal stents are warranted.

Keywords: Duodenum, Self expandable metallic stent, Salvage

INTRODUCTION

Duodenal obstruction due to malignant pancreaticobiliary and duodenal cancers has become more common with the development of chemotherapy and other palliative therapies. Historically, duodenal obstruction has been known to occur in 2% to 25% of patients without surgery. However, a recent study reported nearly twice the obstruction rate (38%).1 Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is reported to be a marker for poor survival, regardless of the type of cancer,2 and its management is important for the patient’s quality of life and further management of the malignancy. The palliative management of GOO includes duodenal self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement, surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ), or endoscopic ultrasound-guided GJ (EUS-GJ).3,4 A meta-analysis showed the superiority of surgical GJ for patients with a long life expectancy and good performance compared to duodenal stenting.5 The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends surgical GJ in patients with a life expectancy of >6 months and a good performance status.6 However, many patients are not suitable for surgical approaches, and even with a good performance status and life expectancy of >6 months, many endoscopists prefer duodenal SEMS insertion. EUS-GJ has shown comparable clinical outcomes to other methods but has technical barriers with instrument and cost issues.7,8

Duodenal stenting has several advantages over other management techniques. This skill is intuitive, and the time to the resumption of oral intake is shorter than that involving surgical GJ.6 It also requires a shorter hospital stay and provides a lower procedure-related bleeding rate compared to other techniques. However, its disadvantage is the high reintervention rate.9 The reintervention rate of duodenal stents is approximately 20%.10

The management of obstructed duodenal stents includes secondary duodenal SEMS placement by stent-in-stent method, surgical GJ, and EUS-GJ. Similar to the first strategy, the management strategy here should be selected based on the patient’s life expectancy, performance, and endoscopist’s preference. However, information regarding the management of duodenal SEMS obstruction is insufficient. Previous studies regarding secondary stent insertion using the stent-in-stent method mostly included gastric cancers.11-15 Sasaki et al.15 included more patients with pancreatic cancer; however, the number of patients included in their study was small (n=16). Therefore, we aimed to review the clinical results of secondary duodenal stent insertion for salvaging obstructed duodenal SEMS in pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Patients

We reviewed the databases of two tertiary hospitals (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, and Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea) for patients who underwent secondary duodenal stent insertion for the management of obstructed duodenal stents in cases of pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies between January 2016 and December 2021. We excluded: (1) patients diagnosed with GOO caused by gastric cancer, considering its location and disease characteristics; (2) patients who experienced obstruction of the first stent within 1 week, as we assessed them as having clinical failure of the first stent; and (3) patients with limited information. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of each hospital (IRB numbers: Asan Medical Center 2023-1209, Pusan National University Hospital 2303-041-125). Written informed consent was waived.

2. Procedure

All procedures were performed in a stent-in-stent manner by four experienced endoscopists (T.J.S., O.D.W., S.Y.H., and D.U.K.). Computed tomography was performed before the procedures. The causes of the first stent obstruction were evaluated using endoscopy and radiocontrast medium injections under fluoroscopy. The obstruction site was negotiated with a guidewire, and an SEMS was deployed under fluoroscopic guidance. The length and type (uncovered or partially covered) of the SEMS were selected at the endoscopist's discretion. If the stent could not cover the entire stricture, an additional stent was deployed. All stents had a diameter of 20 mm and lengths of 6, 8, 10, or 12 cm. They were manufactured by Taewoong Medical, Seoul, Korea, or Standard Sci-Tech Inc., Seoul, Korea.

3. Assessment of clinical outcomes

The primary outcome was stent patency. Data regarding the baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, diagnosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, prior biliary drainage, prior chemotherapy before stent insertion, serum albumin before stent insertion, and first stent patency) and clinical outcomes (technical success, clinical success, obstruction site, adverse event, chemotherapy after stent insertion, stent patency, cause of stent dysfunction, and overall survival) were collected. Stent patency was calculated from the insertion date to the date of reintervention. In cases where there was no evidence of stent dysfunction during the follow-up period, the duration of stent patency was considered to be equal to the survival time of the patient, and they were censored. The prior stent patency was calculated and classified as less or greater than 180 days, as the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline suggests a 6-month cutoff for choosing between duodenal stenting or surgical GJ. We postulated that the duration of the secondary duodenal stent might be indicated by the preceding stent patency. A prolonged initial stent patency could suggest a slower progression of the tumor or a more favorable response to chemotherapy, potentially resulting in an extended secondary stent patency. Conversely, a shorter primary stent patency might indicate the aggressive nature of the tumor or a suboptimal response to chemotherapy. The obstruction site was classified into above-ampulla, ampulla-involved, and below-ampulla. Technical success was reached when the secondary stent successfully covered the stricture by tumor ingrowth or overgrowth. The gastric outlet obstruction scoring system (GOOSS) was used to assess the severity of duodenal obstruction before and after secondary stent insertion, and clinical success was defined as any improvement of the GOOSS score. Adverse events were recorded based on a lexicon for endoscopic adverse events.16

4. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, including means or medians, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges, were used for continuous variables, as appropriate. Categorical parameters are expressed as frequencies and proportions and were compared using the chi-square or Fisher exact test. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox hazard regression test to estimate the time-to-event data. Multivariable Cox regression was performed to identify factors associated with patency and overall survival. Using a backward elimination, variables with p-value <0.2 on univariable regression were included as covariates for multivariable Cox regression. Outcomes are reported as percentages with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All reported p-values were two-sided, and a p‐value of <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. The data were analyzed using the R program, version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org).

RESULTS

1. Patient characteristics

During the study period, 694 cases of duodenal stenting were performed at Asan Medical Center and Pusan National University Hospital. Among those cases, a total of 128 patients (108 Asan Medical Center and 20 Pusan National University Hospital) underwent secondary duodenal SEMS placement to salvage an obstructed duodenal SEMS between January 2016 and December 2021. Eighteen patients were excluded for the following reasons: gastric cancer (n=4), first stent patency ≤7 days (n=9), and limited information (n=5). Among the 110 patients, secondary stent insertion failed in one. Therefore, 109 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 64.4±11.2 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 63:46. The most common diagnosis was pancreatic cancer (n=70), followed by biliary cancer (n=22), duodenal cancer (n=5), and other metastatic cancers (n=12). Other metastatic cancer cases included hepatocellular carcinoma (n=3), breast cancer (n=2), lung cancer (n=1), liposarcoma (n=1), colon cancer (n=1), renal cancer (n=1), cancer of unknown primary (n=1), bladder cancer (n=1), and neuroendocrine cancer (n=1). The baseline characteristics, including the ECOG performance status, prior biliary drainage, prior chemotherapy, serum albumin level before the procedure, and first stent patency, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 . Baseline Characteristics of the Included Patients.

CharacteristicValue (n=109)
Age, yr64.4±11.2
Sex
Male63 (57.8)
Female46 (42.2)
Primary cancer
Pancreatic cancer70 (64.2)
Biliary cancer22 (20.2)
Duodenal cancer5 (4.6)
Other metastatic cancers*12 (11.0)
Cause of the first stent dysfunction
Tumor ingrowth69 (63.3)
Tumor overgrowth40 (36.7)
ECOG performance status
153 (48.6)
235 (32.1)
317 (15.6)
44 (3.7)
Prior biliary drainage80 (73.4)
Prior chemotherapy82 (75.2)
Albumin, g/dL2.6±0.5
First stent patency, day152.1±158.0
First stent patency <180 day32 (29.4)

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%)..

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group..

*Other metastatic cancers included hepatocellular carcinoma (n=3), lung cancer (n=1), liposarcoma (n=1), breast cancer (n=2), colon cancer (n=1), renal cancer (n=1), cancer of unknown primary (n=1), bladder cancer (n=1), and neuroendocrine cancer (n=1)..



2. Technical and clinical outcomes of secondary duodenal SEMS placement

Technical success was achieved in 109 out of 110 patients (99.1%). In one patient, the procedure failed because the guidewire could not be placed through a severe long tight stricture. EUS-GJ was performed for the patient. Among 109 patients with successful secondary stenting, clinical success was observed in 94 (86.2%) (Fig. 1). Out of 109 patients, 95 (87.2%) achieved success with a single stent, while the remaining 14 required multiple stents. Specifically, 13 patients required two stents, and one patient required three stents to cover the stricture. The distribution of the GOOSS scores before the procedure was as follows: 0 (n=39), 1 (n=39), and 2 (n=31). The distribution of the GOOSS scores after the procedure was as follows: 0 (n=5), 1 (n=12), 2 (n=46), and 3 (n=46). Uncovered stents and partially covered stents were used in 65 (59.6%) and 44 (40.4%) cases, respectively. Adverse events occurred in five (4.6%) patients, and these included cholangitis (n=2), pancreatitis (n=1), perforation (n=1), and bleeding (n=1) (Table 2). They occurred within a week after stent insertion. Cholangitis was managed with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. All adverse events were successfully managed conservatively. Twenty-three patients experienced a stent dysfunction. The overall median stent patency was 231 days (95% CI, 169 to not available) (Fig. 2). Stent dysfunction was managed with additional stent insertion. The overall survival was 90 days (95% CI, 74 to 125) (Fig. 3).

Figure 1. Flowchart regarding this study. SEMS, self-expandable metallic stent.

Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier curve for the patency of the secondary duodenal stent.

Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier curve for patient survival after secondary duodenal stenting.

Table 2 . Technical and Clinical Outcomes of Secondary Duodenal Stenting for Duodenal Stent Obstruction (n=109).

OutcomeValue
Technical success rate, No. (%)109/110 (99.1)
Clinical success rate, No. (%)94 (86.2)
Pre-GOOSS score, 0/1/2/339/39/31/0
Post-GOOSS score, 0/1/2/35/12/46/46
Location, No. (%)
Above ampulla28 (25.7)
Ampulla involved49 (45.0)
Beyond ampulla32 (29.4)
Stent type, No. (%)
Uncovered65 (59.6)
Partially covered44 (40.4)
Adverse event, No. (%)5 (4.6)
Cholangitis2
Pancreatitis1
Perforation1
Bleeding1
Stent patency, median (95% CI), day231 (169–NA)
Cause of stent dysfunction, No. (%)23 (21.1)
Ingrowth14
Overgrowth7
Migration2
Overall survival, median (IQR), day90 (74–125)

GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; CI, confidence interval; NA, not available; IQR, interquartile range..



3. Factors related to clinical failure

Compared to the clinical success group, the clinical failure group (n=15) showed lower serum albumin level (2.3±0.3 g/dL vs 2.6±0.5 g/dL, p=0.007) and a higher ECOG score (2.6±1.0 vs 1.6±0.8, p<0.001). Only 6.7% (1/15) of those who experienced clinical failure were able to receive chemotherapy after secondary duodenal stenting because, generally, cytotoxic chemotherapy is not recommended for decompensated states (ECOG scale >2). Patients who experienced clinical failure showed significantly shorter survival than those who experienced clinical success (28 days, 95% CI [13 to 74] vs 101 days, 95% CI [84 to 138]; p<0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3 . Factors Related to Clinical Failure.

FactorClinical failure (n=15)Clinical success (n=94)p-value
Age, yr69.3±9.163.6±11.30.066
Male sex7 (46.7)56 (59.6)0.510
Pancreatic cancer11 (73.3)59 (62.8)0.615
Chemotherapy after procedure1 (6.7)34 (36.2)0.048
GOOSS before procedure1.1±0.80.9±0.80.469
Albumin, g/dL2.3±0.32.6±0.50.007
ECOG performance status2.6±1.01.6±0.8<0.001
Survival after procedure, day28 (13–74)101 (84–138)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD, number (%), or median (95% CI)..

GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group..



4. Multivariable Cox hazard analysis for stent patency and survival

The multivariable Cox hazard analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with stent patency and survival. Age, sex, diagnosis (pancreatic cancer vs others), first stent patency (≥6 months vs <6 months), stent type (uncovered vs partially covered), location, GOOSS score before and after the procedure, albumin level before the procedure, and the type of chemotherapy after the secondary stent insertion were included in the analysis. Regarding stent patency, the ECOG performance status (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.38 to 4.39; p=0.024) and first stent patency ≥6 months (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.91; p=0.033) remained significant associated factors (Table 4). Regarding survival, the first stent patency ≥6 months, chemotherapy after the procedure, GOOSS score after the procedure, albumin level before the procedure, and ECOG performance remained significant associated factors (Table 5).

Table 4 . Multivariable Cox Proportional Analysis for Patency.

VariableUnivariable analysisMultivariable analysis
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Age0.98 (095–1.02)0.370
Male sex0.98 (0.43–2.25)0.974
Pancreatic cancer0.60 (0.26–1.38)0.232
First patency ≥6 mo0.31 (0.10–0.92)0.0340.30 (0.10–0.91)0.033
Partially covered stent1.55 (0.66–3.63)0.315
Chemotherapy after procedure0.84 (0.36–1.93)0.672
Location
Ampulla involvedReference
Above ampulla0.91 (0.33–2.47)0.800
Beyond ampulla0.80 (0. 28–2.31)0.700
GOOSS before procedure0.64 (0.38–1.10)0.110
GOOSS after procedure0.53 (0.27–1.04)0.653
Albumin0.82 (0.33–2.10)0.683
ECOG performance status2.31 (1.24–3.92)0.0072.46 (1.38–4.39)0.024

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group..



Table 5 . Multivariable Cox Proportional Analysis for Survival.

VariableUnivariable analysisMultivariable analysis
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Age1.01 (0.99–1.02)0.603
Male sex1.03 (0.69–1.51)0.898
Pancreatic cancer0.84 (0.56–1.25)0.393
First patency ≥6 mo0.64 (0.42–0.99)0.0440.52 (0.33–0.81)0.004
Partially covered stent1.24 (0.83–1.83)0.290
Chemotherapy after procedure0.48 (0.32–0.73)<0.0010.68 (0.43–1.07)0.092
Location
Ampulla involvedReference
Above ampulla1.10 (0.68–1.77)0.694
Beyond ampulla0.94 (0.59–1.47)0.772
GOOSS before procedure0.90 (0.71–1.13)0.364
GOOSS after procedure0.35 (0.26–0.47)<0.0010.47 (0.33–0.65)<0.001
Albumin0.53 (0.34–0.83)0.0660.65 (0.41–1.03)0.066
ECOG performance status2.03 (1.59–2.58)<0.0011.53 (1.14–2.04)0.004

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group..


DISCUSSION

Many studies have reported clinical data regarding first duodenal SEMS placement. However, those regarding the outcomes of secondary duodenal SEMS placement for obstructed duodenal SEMS are limited, especially for pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective study regarding secondary duodenal SEMS placement for obstructed duodenal SEMS in patients with pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies.

Our study showed a technical success rate of approximately 99.1%, which was comparable to that of the first stent insertion. A second stent insertion could be easier, as a previously inserted stent can help place the guidewire under fluoroscopy. Although secondary duodenal insertion was technically successful, it did not lead to total clinical success (86.2%). This means that although luminal patency is secured after secondary stent insertion, clinical success is not guaranteed. Several factors can contribute to clinical failures, such as advanced malignancy causing anorexia and peritoneal carcinomatosis affecting gastrointestinal motility.17 In our study, 15 patients with clinical failure had lower serum albumin levels and higher ECOG scores than those with clinical success. Their survival rates were significantly lower. We believe that these patients would not have benefited from surgery or EUS-GJ. Therefore, duodenal stenting is an attractive option for these patients, considering its cost or associated morbidity.

In our study, the dysfunction rate of the secondary duodenal stent was 21.1%, with a median patency of 231 days (95% CI, 169 to not available). The dysfunction rate appeared to be similar to that of the first stent. Patency was similar to the previous reports.11,12,18 The patency can be exaggerated due to short survival time (median 90 days). However, as median patency is longer than the median survival, secondary stenting would be a good option for obstructed duodenal stent. Stent ingrowth was the most common reason for dysfunction, and was managed with a third duodenal stent insertion.

We performed multivariable analysis to identify factors related to stent patency, and ECOG performance status and first stent patency ≥6 months remained significant factors. Currently the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline suggests surgical GJ for more than 6-month life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting also can achieve longer patency, and we thought the longer the previous stent functions, the longer the secondary stent will function, as this could imply better response to chemotherapy or slow progression. As the results imply, secondary stenting would be a good salvage option if the first stent functions long enough. If the patency of the first stent is short, it would be better to choose surgery or EUS-GJ.

We also analyzed factors related to patient survival. The first stent patency ≥6 months, chemotherapy after the procedure, GOOSS score after the procedure, albumin level before the procedure, and ECOG performance were significantly related to the patient’s survival. Albumin levels are usually low in states of malnutrition and inflammation and are known to be associated with cancer survival.19 These related factors imply that good performance status, better nutritional status, and chemotherapy are critical for patient survival. Therefore, optimal management of duodenal obstruction should be prioritized for patients with pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies to provide better nutritional support, which could lead to better performance status. Palliative chemotherapy should also be recommended if patients can tolerate longer survival after the secondary stenting.

Overall, adverse events occurred in five patients (4.6%). Cholangitis was the most common adverse event (n=2). Since most patients may have previously undergone biliary drainage, endoscopists should be aware of the risk of biliary obstruction. Even though the secondary stent was located across the ampulla in 45% of the patients, only one case of pancreatitis occurred. Previously inserted stents may decrease the risk of pancreatitis due to the remodeling of the tumor. Sasaki et al.15 reported perforation as a major complication (13.8%) of secondary gastroduodenal stenting, however, we observed this in one case, which was managed conservatively. Therefore, secondary duodenal stenting can be considered safe.

The choice between covered and uncovered stents is another issue associated with secondary duodenal stent insertion. According to a recent meta-analysis, covered stents were reported to show longer patency and a higher risk of migration than uncovered stents, and there was no statistical difference in the technical and clinical success rates and overall adverse events.20 Regarding secondary stenting, Park et al.12 reported that covered and uncovered stents were equally acceptable based on patency and adverse events. However, their study mostly included gastric cancer (90.9%), and the locations were mostly prepyloric lesions or anastomotic sites after subtotal gastrectomy (90.9%). Regarding primary stenting in pancreaticobiliary cancer, Woo et al.21 reported a higher complication rate with covered stents, primarily due to a significantly higher stent migration rate with a tendency for shorter patency compared with uncovered stents. In our study, we found no statistical differences in patency and adverse events between the two types of stents. Further study for optimal stent for secondary stenting should be carried in the future.

The strength of our study is the large number of patients with pancreaticobiliary and duodenal malignancies. However, this study had several limitations. First, there was selection bias owing to the retrospective design. Moreover, the high technical success rate may have resulted from a selection bias. Second, different types of cancers and chemotherapies were included, which may have affected the stent patency and survival. Particularly, life expectancy influences the dysfunction rate. Since stent dysfunction is calculated from insertion to reintervention, individuals with a shorter remaining lifespan may contribute to a lower dysfunction rate. However, we believe that these data may provide real-world information. Third, different sizes, designs, numbers, and types of stents were used and the strategy of selection was not standardized; however, their effects on the results may not be significant. Fourth, safety might have been underestimated, as late adverse events (>14 days) could not be reliably distinguished from complications arising from tumor progression. In conclusion, secondary duodenal stent insertion is a viable option for first duodenal stent obstruction. Moreover, further comparative studies involving surgery or EUS-GJ for obstructed duodenal stents are warranted.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design: T.J.S. Data acquisition: H.D.J., S.Y.H., D.U.K., H.S.L., S.H.C. Data analysis and interpretation: H.S., H.D.J. Drafting of the manuscripts: H.S., H.D.J. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: D.O., D.W.S. Statistical analysis: H.S., S.W.K. Study supervision: T.J.S. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Flowchart regarding this study. SEMS, self-expandable metallic stent.
Gut and Liver 2024; :

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier curve for the patency of the secondary duodenal stent.
Gut and Liver 2024; :

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Kaplan-Meier curve for patient survival after secondary duodenal stenting.
Gut and Liver 2024; :

Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of the Included Patients

CharacteristicValue (n=109)
Age, yr64.4±11.2
Sex
Male63 (57.8)
Female46 (42.2)
Primary cancer
Pancreatic cancer70 (64.2)
Biliary cancer22 (20.2)
Duodenal cancer5 (4.6)
Other metastatic cancers*12 (11.0)
Cause of the first stent dysfunction
Tumor ingrowth69 (63.3)
Tumor overgrowth40 (36.7)
ECOG performance status
153 (48.6)
235 (32.1)
317 (15.6)
44 (3.7)
Prior biliary drainage80 (73.4)
Prior chemotherapy82 (75.2)
Albumin, g/dL2.6±0.5
First stent patency, day152.1±158.0
First stent patency <180 day32 (29.4)

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

*Other metastatic cancers included hepatocellular carcinoma (n=3), lung cancer (n=1), liposarcoma (n=1), breast cancer (n=2), colon cancer (n=1), renal cancer (n=1), cancer of unknown primary (n=1), bladder cancer (n=1), and neuroendocrine cancer (n=1).


Table 2 Technical and Clinical Outcomes of Secondary Duodenal Stenting for Duodenal Stent Obstruction (n=109)

OutcomeValue
Technical success rate, No. (%)109/110 (99.1)
Clinical success rate, No. (%)94 (86.2)
Pre-GOOSS score, 0/1/2/339/39/31/0
Post-GOOSS score, 0/1/2/35/12/46/46
Location, No. (%)
Above ampulla28 (25.7)
Ampulla involved49 (45.0)
Beyond ampulla32 (29.4)
Stent type, No. (%)
Uncovered65 (59.6)
Partially covered44 (40.4)
Adverse event, No. (%)5 (4.6)
Cholangitis2
Pancreatitis1
Perforation1
Bleeding1
Stent patency, median (95% CI), day231 (169–NA)
Cause of stent dysfunction, No. (%)23 (21.1)
Ingrowth14
Overgrowth7
Migration2
Overall survival, median (IQR), day90 (74–125)

GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; CI, confidence interval; NA, not available; IQR, interquartile range.


Table 3 Factors Related to Clinical Failure

FactorClinical failure (n=15)Clinical success (n=94)p-value
Age, yr69.3±9.163.6±11.30.066
Male sex7 (46.7)56 (59.6)0.510
Pancreatic cancer11 (73.3)59 (62.8)0.615
Chemotherapy after procedure1 (6.7)34 (36.2)0.048
GOOSS before procedure1.1±0.80.9±0.80.469
Albumin, g/dL2.3±0.32.6±0.50.007
ECOG performance status2.6±1.01.6±0.8<0.001
Survival after procedure, day28 (13–74)101 (84–138)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD, number (%), or median (95% CI).

GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.


Table 4 Multivariable Cox Proportional Analysis for Patency

VariableUnivariable analysisMultivariable analysis
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Age0.98 (095–1.02)0.370
Male sex0.98 (0.43–2.25)0.974
Pancreatic cancer0.60 (0.26–1.38)0.232
First patency ≥6 mo0.31 (0.10–0.92)0.0340.30 (0.10–0.91)0.033
Partially covered stent1.55 (0.66–3.63)0.315
Chemotherapy after procedure0.84 (0.36–1.93)0.672
Location
Ampulla involvedReference
Above ampulla0.91 (0.33–2.47)0.800
Beyond ampulla0.80 (0. 28–2.31)0.700
GOOSS before procedure0.64 (0.38–1.10)0.110
GOOSS after procedure0.53 (0.27–1.04)0.653
Albumin0.82 (0.33–2.10)0.683
ECOG performance status2.31 (1.24–3.92)0.0072.46 (1.38–4.39)0.024

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.


Table 5 Multivariable Cox Proportional Analysis for Survival

VariableUnivariable analysisMultivariable analysis
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Age1.01 (0.99–1.02)0.603
Male sex1.03 (0.69–1.51)0.898
Pancreatic cancer0.84 (0.56–1.25)0.393
First patency ≥6 mo0.64 (0.42–0.99)0.0440.52 (0.33–0.81)0.004
Partially covered stent1.24 (0.83–1.83)0.290
Chemotherapy after procedure0.48 (0.32–0.73)<0.0010.68 (0.43–1.07)0.092
Location
Ampulla involvedReference
Above ampulla1.10 (0.68–1.77)0.694
Beyond ampulla0.94 (0.59–1.47)0.772
GOOSS before procedure0.90 (0.71–1.13)0.364
GOOSS after procedure0.35 (0.26–0.47)<0.0010.47 (0.33–0.65)<0.001
Albumin0.53 (0.34–0.83)0.0660.65 (0.41–1.03)0.066
ECOG performance status2.03 (1.59–2.58)<0.0011.53 (1.14–2.04)0.004

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOOSS, gastric outlet obstruction scoring system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.


References

  1. Shah A, Fehmi A, Savides TJ. Increased rates of duodenal obstruction in pancreatic cancer patients receiving modern medical management. Dig Dis Sci 2014;59:2294-2298.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Oh SY, Edwards A, Mandelson M, et al. Survival and clinical outcome after endoscopic duodenal stent placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: comparison of pancreatic cancer and nonpancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:460-468.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Papanikolaou IS, Siersema PD. Gastric outlet obstruction: current status and future directions. Gut Liver 2022;16:667-675.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Cheung SLH, Teoh AYB. Optimal management of gastric outlet obstruction in unresectable malignancies. Gut Liver 2022;16:190-197.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Mintziras I, Miligkos M, Wächter S, Manoharan J, Bartsch DK. Palliative surgical bypass is superior to palliative endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;33:3153-3164.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Jue TL, Storm AC, et al; ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of benign and malignant gastroduodenal obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:309-322.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Iqbal U, Khara HS, Hu Y, et al. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2020;9:16-23.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Sánchez-Aldehuelo R, Subtil Iñigo JC, Martínez Moreno B, et al. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal self-expandable metal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: results from a nationwide multicenter retrospective study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:1012-1020.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Krishnamoorthi R, Bomman S, Benias P, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic duodenal stent versus endoscopic or surgical gastrojejunostomy to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2022;10:E874-E897.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Jung K, Ahn JY, Jung HY, et al. Outcomes of endoscopically inserted self-expandable metal stents in malignancy according to the type of stent and the site of obstruction. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4001-4010.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Jin EH, Kim SG, Seo JY, Im JP, Kim JS, Jung HC. Clinical outcomes of re-stenting in patients with stent malfunction in malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1372-1379.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Park JC, Park JJ, Cheoi K, et al. Clinical outcomes of secondary stent-in-stent self-expanding metal stent placement for primary stent malfunction in malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Dig Liver Dis 2012;44:999-1005.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Kim CG, Choi IJ, Lee JY, et al. Outcomes of second self-expandable metallic stent insertion for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Surg Endosc 2014;28:281-288.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Mo JW, Kim YM, Kim JH, Shin SY, Youn YH, Park H. Clinical outcomes after multiple self-expandable metallic stent placement using stent-in-stent technique for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e19432.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Sasaki T, Isayama H, Nakai Y, et al. Clinical outcomes of secondary gastroduodenal self-expandable metallic stent placement by stent-in-stent technique for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Dig Endosc 2015;27:37-43.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446-454.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Baldaque-Silva F. Stent-in-stent for malign obstruction: should we go back to a place where we were happy?. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2020;27:375-377.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Wei TH, Ye BW, Wu PS, et al. Outcomes of patients with malignant duodenal obstruction after receiving self-expandable metallic stents: a single center experience. PLoS One 2022;17:e0268920.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Gupta D, Lis CG. Pretreatment serum albumin as a predictor of cancer survival: a systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Nutr J 2010;9:69.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Tringali A, Costa D, Anderloni A, Carrara S, Repici A, Adler DG. Covered versus uncovered metal stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:1153-1163.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Woo SM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, et al. Comparison of uncovered and covered stents for the treatment of malignant duodenal obstruction caused by pancreaticobiliary cancer. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2031-2039.
    Pubmed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.18 No.3
May, 2024

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office