Comparison between gastrostomy feeding and self-expandable metal stent insertion for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia

Abstract

Background

Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion and percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) feeding are commonly used for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. This study aimed to compare outcomes between SEMS insertion and PG feeding for them.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 308 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent fully covered SEMS insertion (stent group) or PG (gastrostomy group) for dysphagia due to tumor. Patients with other causes of dysphagia, such as radiation-induced or postoperative stricture, were excluded from the study. Clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups, including overall survival and need for additional intervention and postprocedural nutritional status.

Results

At baseline, the stent group (n = 169) had more stage IV patients, less cervical cancers, and received radiotherapy and esophagectomy less often than the gastrostomy group (n = 64). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed higher overall survival in the gastrostomy group than in the stent group. Multivariate analysis revealed that PG was associated with better survival compared with SEMS insertion (hazard ratio 0.541, 95% confidence interval 0.346–0.848, p = 0.007). In addition, the gastrostomy group needed additional intervention less often (3.1% vs. 21.9%, p < 0.001) and experienced less decrease in serum albumin levels (-0.15 ± 0.56 g/dL vs. -0.39 ± 0.58 g/dL, p = 0.011) than the stent group after procedure.

Conclusions

Our data suggested that, compared with SEMS insertion, PG is associated with better overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. Stabilized nutritional status by PG may play a role in improving patient survival.

About the Authors:

Yang Won Min

Contributed equally to this work with: Yang Won Min, Eun Young Jang

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7471-1305

Eun Young Jang

Contributed equally to this work with: Yang Won Min, Eun Young Jang

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Ji Hey Jung

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Hyuk Lee

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Byung-Hoon Min

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Jun Haeng Lee

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Poong-Lyul Rhee

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Jae J. Kim

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Introduction

The incidence of esophageal cancer is increasing, and esophageal cancer ranked ninth for cancer incidence and sixth for cancer death in 2013 [1]. Many patients with esophageal cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and dysphagia is their predominant symptom Fully or partially covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement for palliation of dysphagia caused by esophageal cancer has become the standard of care because of its better efficacy compared to other treatment modalities [2,3]. Indeed, rapid palliation of dysphagia is a major advantage of SEMS insertion [4,5]. However, SEMS has a risk of adverse events such as recurrent dysphagia, pain, gastroesophageal reflux, and esophagorespiratory fistula [6]. Thus, the quality of life (QoL) decreases immediately following treatment in patients who receive SEMS insertion [7].

Patients with esophageal cancer are more likely to experience weight loss and have a higher risk of malnutrition than patients with other cancers [8]. Although dysphagia caused by obstruction is the main cause of malnutrition, patients with esophageal cancer frequently have compromised oral intake during treatment with or without curative intent. As weight loss and malnutrition are determinants of tolerance to treatment and survival [9], not only restoring swallowing but also maintaining nutritional status should be pursued in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. Percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) feeding can provide optimal nutritional support and stabilize QoL in patients with cancer and dysphagia [10,11]. Thus, currently SEMS and PG have been commonly used to maintain nutrition in patients with malignant dysphagia due to esophageal cancer. However, no direct comparison between SEMS insertion and PG feeding has been performed, even in a retrospective design. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) insertion and PG feeding in terms of clinical outcomes, including overall survival and nutritional status, in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia.

Methods

Study population

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 308 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent FCSEMS insertion or PG for dysphagia at the Samsung Medical Center between January 1996 and December 2013. The diagnosis of esophageal cancer was made by histological confirmation. Procedures were endoscopically or radiologically performed. Although there were not specific indications for FCSEMS insertion or PG, FCSEMS insertion was preferred to patients who wanted to continue oral intake and PG was often performed for cervical cancers. Patients were excluded from the study if they met the following criteria: 1) bronchoesophageal fistula (n = 33), 2) other cancer (n = 27), 3) stricture due to operation or radiotherapy (n = 7), 4) underwent the procedure previously at another hospital (n = 3), 5) recurrent cancer after radiotherapy and esophagectomy (n = 2), 6) lye stricture (n = 1), 7) underwent jejunostomy prior to the procedure (n = 1), or 8) were lost to follow-up (n = 1). Finally, 169 patients who underwent FCSEMS insertion (stent group) and 64 patients who received PG feeding (gastrostomy group) were included in the analysis (Fig 1). This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Samsung Medical Center (No. 2015-12-030). The board waived the requirement for informed consent.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Flow chart of patient selection.

FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent; RT, radiotherapy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179522.g001

Data collection and definitions

The following data was collected as baseline characteristics: age, sex, tumor stage according to AJCC 7^th [12], tumor histology, tumor location, length of obstruction by tumor (determined by endoscopy, esophagography, or computed tomography [CT]), history of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or esophagectomy before the procedure, body weight, and serum albumin level (S1 File). Data regarding the occurrence of procedure-related complications, presence of aspiration pneumonia, treatment with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or esophagectomy, and changes of body weight and serum albumin level after the procedure were also obtained. Changes in weight and albumin level were determined by the values measured 1 to 2 months after the procedure. Aspiration pneumonia was defined when a patient had a history of aspiration according to medical records and had a chest CT scan showing gravity-dependent opacity, which is known to be indicative of aspiration pneumonia. Survival and the presence of additional intervention following the procedure (FCSEMS insertion or PG) were also investigated. Additional intervention included stent insertion, stent reposition, gastrostomy, and removal of stent or gastrostomy due to complications.

Outcomes

All-cause mortality was investigated for survival, which was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the need for additional intervention, number of additional interventions, presence of complications, presence of aspiration pneumonia, and change in body weight or serum albumin level after the procedure.

Statistical analysis

Data are shown as the mean ± SD or number (%) of patients. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to obtain survival curves and the log-rank test to assess the differences in the survival curves. Baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes were compared between the two groups by using the t-test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) for each type of procedure (FCSEMS or PG) after adjustment for the other baseline characteristics. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. SAS ver. 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used for all analyses.

Results

Baseline characteristics

Table 1 shows the comparison of baseline characteristics between the two groups. The mean age of patients in the stent and gastrostomy groups was 64.5 ± 10.2 and 62.3 ± 10.2 years, respectively (p = 0.141). The stent group had more men (93.5% vs. 78.1%, p < 0.001) and stage IV patients (88.8% vs. 57.8%, p < 0.001) than the gastrostomy group. Tumor location was different between the two groups (p < 0.001); lower thoracic obstruction was the most common in the stent group (42.6%) while cervical obstruction was most common in the gastrostomy group (35.9%). However, tumor histology and length of obstruction by the tumor did not differ between the two groups. The gastrostomy group received radiotherapy before and after the procedure (42.2% vs. 20.7% and 37.5% vs. 20.7%, respectively) and esophagectomy after procedure (20.3% vs. 4.7%) more often than the stent group (p < 0.001).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Comparison of baseline characteristics between esophageal cancer patients who received either esophageal self-expanding metal stent or percutaneous gastrostomy for malignant dysphagia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179522.t001

Overall survival

During the median follow up of 4.9 months (interquartile range 2.4–9.6 months; maximum 145.7 months), the Kaplan-Meier curves revealed significantly superior survival in the gastrostomy group compared to the stent group (stage II+III, p < 0.001 and stage IV, p = 0.028, Fig 2). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment with chemotherapy before or after the procedure, treatment with radiotherapy before the procedure, treatment with esophagectomy after the procedure, and the type of procedure (FCSEMS insertion vs. PG) were independent prognostic factors associated with overall survival (Table 2). The gastrostomy group showed better survival than the stent group with an HR of 0.557 (95% confidence interval 0.358–0.867, p = 0.007).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2.

(A) Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival in stage II and III esophageal cancer patients who received either esophageal self-expanding metal stent or percutaneous gastrostomy for malignant dysphagia. (B) Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival in stage IV esophageal cancer patients who received either esophageal self-expanding metal stent or percutaneous gastrostomy for malignant dysphagia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179522.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Prognostic factors associated with overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179522.t002

Secondary outcomes

Table 3 shows the comparison of secondary outcomes between the two groups. The stent group needed additional intervention more often than the gastrostomy group (21.9% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001). In addition, the number of additional interventions was higher in the stent group than in the gastrostomy group (0.27 ± 0.55 times vs. 0.05 ± 0.28 times, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the presence of procedure-related complication or aspiration pneumonia. Although change in body weight after the procedure did not differ between the two groups, albumin level after the procedure dropped more in the stent group than in the gastrostomy group (-0.39 ± 0.58 g/dL vs. -0.15 ± 0.56 g/dL, p = 0.011).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Comparison of secondary outcomes between esophageal cancer patients who received either esophageal self-expanding metal stent or percutaneous gastrostomy for malignant dysphagia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179522.t003

Discussion

Currently, fully or partially covered SEMS insertion and PG have become the most common procedures to treat dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer. However, the optimal procedure has not been established. In patients with advanced esophageal cancer, stabilized nutritional status is important for tolerance to treatment and survival. Thus, in terms of survival, the strength of PG feeding in providing optimal nutritional support is more important than the benefit of SEMS insertion in providing rapid palliation of dysphagia. The present study is the first to compare the two procedures. We observed that PG feeding was associated with better overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia compared with FCSEMS insertion. Furthermore, the gastrostomy group needed less additional interventions and experienced less decrease in serum albumin levels than the stent group. These observations indicate that stabilized nutritional status by PG feeding may play a role in improving survival in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia as compared to FCSEMS insertion.

Fully or partially covered SEMS insertion is recommended for palliation of malignant dysphagia [2]. Indeed, SEMS has shown superior efficacy for the palliation of malignant dysphagia in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared to photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, esophageal bypass, and rigid plastic stents, and SEMS has improved the dysphagia score by at least 2 points within 1–2 days [3,13]. However, analysis of pooled data from RCTs and observational studies showed frequent adverse events associated with SEMS for malignant dysphagia [2]. Among them, severe pain was the most common and was reported in up to 35% of patients. The rate of pain after SEMS varies depending on the type of stent; the expansion force and decreased flexibility of the stent may play a role in the generation of pain [14–17]. In addition, gastroesophageal reflux occurs frequently, especially when the stent is placed across the esophagogastric junction, although there have been some reports showing the preventive effect of an antireflux stent [18,19]. These common adverse events may make it difficult to maintain oral food intake. Recurrent dysphagia because of stent migration, tumor and/or tissue ingrowth or overgrowth, and food impaction also could disrupt optimal nutritional support.

Malnutrition is a determinant of tolerance to treatment and survival in patients with esophageal cancer and is associated with a poor prognosis [20,21]. However, weight loss is reported in 79% of patients with esophageal cancer because of the increased metabolic demand and insufficient nutritional intake [22,23]. In addition to dysphagia and anorexia, esophagitis and side effects from radiotherapy and chemotherapy compromise oral intake. Therefore, patients with esophageal cancer could have persistent deterioration in nutritional status even after dysphagia is improved by SEMS insertion [24]. PG feeding can be used in patients with dysphagia and head and neck cancer and esophageal cancer to stabilize or improve the patients’ nutritional status [25,26]. PG is readily placed with limited complications using percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy techniques, even in patients with advanced esophageal cancer [11,27,28]. Indeed, our results showed that PG feeding was associated with better survival and nutritional support as compared to SEMS insertion. Although changes in body weight after the procedure did not reach statistical significance between the two groups, serum albumin levels after the procedure dropped less in the gastrostomy group than in the stent group. However, nutritional status was determined 1 to 2 months after the procedure, which might be too short a time for decreased body stores to be evidenced by weight loss.

The present study had some limitations. First, there is a risk of selection bias due to the retrospective design. Second, nutritional status was evaluated only by body weight and serum albumin level. Third, QoL was not compared between the two groups, which is important in the palliative care setting. However, QoL is well known to fall immediately following SEMS insertion and is improved after PG feeding [7,10,29]. Our study also had strengths. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the outcomes between SEMS insertion and PG feeding in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. Surprisingly, we observed a survival benefit in the gastrostomy group compared to the stent group. The gastrostomy group also had better nutritional status after the procedure than the stent group. In conclusion, our results suggest that PG feeding is a better option than SEMS insertion for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia.

Supporting information

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

S1 File. Dataset of this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179522.s001

(XLSX)

Author Contributions

1. Conceptualization: YWM.

2. Data curation: YWM EYJ JHJ.

3. Formal analysis: YWM EYJ JHJ.

4. Investigation: JHJ HL BHM JHL.

5. Methodology: YWM.

6. Project administration: YWM.

7. Supervision: PLR JJK.

8. Writing – original draft: EYJ.

9. Writing – review & editing: YWM.

Citation: Min YW, Jang EY, Jung JH, Lee H, Min B-H, Lee JH, et al. (2017) Comparison between gastrostomy feeding and self-expandable metal stent insertion for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179522. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179522

References

1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, et al. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1: 505–527. pmid:26181261

2. Spaander MC, Baron TH, Siersema PD, Fuccio L, Schumacher B, Escorsell A, et al. Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2016;48: 939–948. pmid:27626318

3. Dai Y, Li C, Xie Y, Liu X, Zhang J, Zhou J, et al. Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014: CD005048. pmid:25354795

4. Homs MY, Steyerberg EW, Eijkenboom WM, Tilanus HW, Stalpers LJ, Bartelsman JF, et al. Single-dose brachytherapy versus metal stent placement for the palliation of dysphagia from oesophageal cancer: multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;364: 1497–1504. pmid:15500894

5. Bergquist H, Wenger U, Johnsson E, Nyman J, Ejnell H, Hammerlid E, et al. Stent insertion or endoluminal brachytherapy as palliation of patients with advanced cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Dis Esophagus. 2005;18: 131–139. pmid:16045572

6. Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. Expandable stents for malignant esophageal disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2011;21: 377–388, vii. pmid:21684460

7. Shenfine J, McNamee P, Steen N, Bond J, Griffin SM. A randomized controlled clinical trial of palliative therapies for patients with inoperable esophageal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104: 1674–1685. pmid:19436289

8. Bozzetti F, Group SW. Screening the nutritional status in oncology: a preliminary report on 1,000 outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17: 279–284. pmid:18581148

9. Hoyo C, Cook MB, Kamangar F, Freedman ND, Whiteman DC, Bernstein L, et al. Body mass index in relation to oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas: a pooled analysis from the International BEACON Consortium. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41: 1706–1718. pmid:23148106

10. Senft M, Fietkau R, Iro H, Sailer D, Sauer R. The influence of supportive nutritional therapy via percutaneous endoscopically guided gastrostomy on the quality of life of cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 1993;1: 272–275. pmid:8156240

11. Loser C, Wolters S, Folsch UR. Enteral long-term nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in 210 patients: a four-year prospective study. Dig Dis Sci. 1998;43: 2549–2557. pmid:9824149

12. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009.

13. Mellow MH, Pinkas H. Endoscopic laser therapy for malignancies affecting the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Analysis of technical and functional efficacy. Arch Intern Med. 1985;145: 1443–1446. pmid:4026476

14. van Boeckel PG, Siersema PD, Sturgess R, Dwyer L, Raijman I, Hirdes MM, et al. A new partially covered metal stent for palliation of malignant dysphagia: a prospective follow-up study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72: 1269–1273. pmid:20951988

15. van Boeckel PG, Repici A, Vleggaar FP, Solito B, Rando G, Cortelezzi C, et al. A new metal stent with a controlled-release system for palliation of malignant dysphagia: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71: 455–460. pmid:20003967

16. Uitdehaag MJ, van Hooft JE, Verschuur EM, Repici A, Steyerberg EW, Fockens P, et al. A fully-covered stent (Alimaxx-E) for the palliation of malignant dysphagia: a prospective follow-up study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70: 1082–1089. pmid:19640521

17. Verschuur EM, Repici A, Kuipers EJ, Steyerberg EW, Siersema PD. New design esophageal stents for the palliation of dysphagia from esophageal or gastric cardia cancer: a randomized trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103: 304–312. pmid:17900325

18. Shim CS, Jung IS, Cheon YK, Ryu CB, Hong SJ, Kim JO, et al. Management of malignant stricture of the esophagogastric junction with a newly designed self-expanding metal stent with an antireflux mechanism. Endoscopy. 2005;37: 335–339. pmid:15824943

19. Power C, Byrne PJ, Lim K, Ravi N, Moore J, Fitzgerald T, et al. Superiority of anti-reflux stent compared with conventional stents in the palliative management of patients with cancer of the lower esophagus and esophago-gastric junction: results of a randomized clinical trial. Dis Esophagus. 2007;20: 466–470. pmid:17958720

20. Adenis A, Tresch E, Dewas S, Romano O, Messager M, Amela E, et al. Clinical complete responders to definite chemoradiation or radiation therapy for oesophageal cancer: predictors of outcome. BMC Cancer. 2013;13: 413. pmid:24010566

21. Anandavadivelan P, Lagergren P. Cachexia in patients with oesophageal cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13: 185–198. pmid:26573424

22. Laviano A, Meguid MM, Inui A, Muscaritoli M, Rossi-Fanelli F. Therapy insight: Cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome—when all you can eat is yourself. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005;2: 158–165. pmid:16264909

23. Bower MR, Martin RC 2nd. Nutritional management during neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100: 82–87. pmid:19373870

24. Mao-de-Ferro S, Serrano M, Ferreira S, Rosa I, Lage P, Alexandre DP, et al. Stents in patients with esophageal cancer before chemoradiotherapy: high risk of complications and no impact on the nutritional status. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70: 409–410. pmid:26669568

25. Loser C, Aschl G, Hebuterne X, Mathus-Vliegen EM, Muscaritoli M, Niv Y, et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition—percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr. 2005;24: 848–861. pmid:16261664

26. Fonseca J, Santos CA, Brito J. Malnutrition and Clinical Outcome of 234 Head and Neck Cancer Patients who Underwent Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy. Nutr Cancer. 2016;68: 589–597. pmid:27144413

27. Sofue K, Takeuchi Y, Tsurusaki M, Shibamoto K, Sakamoto N, Kitajima K, et al. Value of Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy for Patients with Advanced Esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23: 3623–3631. pmid:27188297

28. Bell SD, Carmody EA, Yeung EY, Thurston WA, Simons ME, Ho CS. Percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy: additional experience in 519 procedures. Radiology. 1995;194: 817–820. pmid:7862985

29. Angus F, Burakoff R. The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. medical and ethical issues in placement. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98: 272–277. pmid:12591040