BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is not widely used in malnourished esophageal cancer (EC) patients because of concerns about its feasibility in frequently obstructive tumors, suitability of the stomach as an esophageal substitute, and potential for metastatic inoculation. A percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) could be an optimal alternative. METHODS: Experience with PRG among 1,205 consecutive patients presenting with EC from 2002 to 2011 in our department was retrospectively reviewed. PRG was mostly utilized for malnourished patients for whom neoadjuvant chemoradiation was scheduled. The rates of both successful placement and major related complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥III) were analyzed. A matched cohort analysis was constructed in patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastroplasty (n = 688) to evaluate the impact of PRG placement on the suitability of the gastric conduit and on postoperative course. For 78 resected patients with PRG (PRG group), 156 randomly selected controls without PRG (no PRG group) were matched 2:1 for gender, age, ASA grade, clinical TNM stage, and neoadjuvant treatment delivery. RESULTS: PRG placement was planned in 269 (22.3 %) patients mainly with locally advanced EC (63.8 %). PRG placement was feasible in 259 (96.3 %) patients. Sixty-day PRG-related mortality and major morbidity rates were 0 and 3.8 % respectively. For resected patients, the PRG and no PRG groups were comparable regarding perioperative characteristics, except for malnutrition, which was more frequent in the PRG group (P < 0.001). At the time of operation, PRG takedown and site closure were uncomplicated and the use of the stomach was possible in all 78 patients. Despite a higher malnutrition rate at presentation in the PRG group, rates of overall morbidity, and morbidity related to esophageal surgery, were similar between the two groups (P > 0.258). CONCLUSION: PRG is feasible, safe, and useful in nonselected patients with EC and does not compromise the suitability of the stomach as an esophageal substitute in patients deemed to be resectable.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is not widely used in malnourished esophageal cancer (EC) patients because of concerns about its feasibility in frequently obstructive tumors, suitability of the stomach as an esophageal substitute, and potential for metastatic inoculation. A percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) could be an optimal alternative. METHODS: Experience with PRG among 1,205 consecutive patients presenting with EC from 2002 to 2011 in our department was retrospectively reviewed. PRG was mostly utilized for malnourished patients for whom neoadjuvant chemoradiation was scheduled. The rates of both successful placement and major related complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥III) were analyzed. A matched cohort analysis was constructed in patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastroplasty (n = 688) to evaluate the impact of PRG placement on the suitability of the gastric conduit and on postoperative course. For 78 resected patients with PRG (PRG group), 156 randomly selected controls without PRG (no PRG group) were matched 2:1 for gender, age, ASA grade, clinical TNM stage, and neoadjuvant treatment delivery. RESULTS: PRG placement was planned in 269 (22.3 %) patients mainly with locally advanced EC (63.8 %). PRG placement was feasible in 259 (96.3 %) patients. Sixty-day PRG-related mortality and major morbidity rates were 0 and 3.8 % respectively. For resected patients, the PRG and no PRG groups were comparable regarding perioperative characteristics, except for malnutrition, which was more frequent in the PRG group (P < 0.001). At the time of operation, PRG takedown and site closure were uncomplicated and the use of the stomach was possible in all 78 patients. Despite a higher malnutrition rate at presentation in the PRG group, rates of overall morbidity, and morbidity related to esophageal surgery, were similar between the two groups (P > 0.258). CONCLUSION: PRG is feasible, safe, and useful in nonselected patients with EC and does not compromise the suitability of the stomach as an esophageal substitute in patients deemed to be resectable.
Authors: W D Dewys; C Begg; P T Lavin; P R Band; J M Bennett; J R Bertino; M H Cohen; H O Douglass; P F Engstrom; E Z Ezdinli; J Horton; G J Johnson; C G Moertel; M M Oken; C Perlia; C Rosenbaum; M N Silverstein; R T Skeel; R W Sponzo; D C Tormey Journal: Am J Med Date: 1980-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Sean M Stokes; Elliot Wakeam; Mara B Antonoff; Leah M Backhus; Robert A Meguid; David Odell; Thomas K Varghese Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.895