Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes following placement of fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMS) vs partially covered self-expanding metallic stents (PCSEMS) for palliative treatment of inoperable esophageal cancer. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases from inception up to 10 th July 2019. Studies comparing clinical outcomes with FCSEMS vs PCSEMS in patients with inoperable esophageal cancer requiring palliative treatment for dysphagia were included. Results: Five studies were included in the review. 299 patients received FCSEMS while 313 patients received PCSEMS in the five studies. Improvement in dysphagia was reported with both FCSEMS and PCSEMS in the included studies. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in technical success between the two groups (Odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95%CI 0.30-5.03, P= 0.78; I 2 =12%). There was no difference in the rates of stent migration between FCSEMS and PCSEMS (OR 1.32, 95%CI 0.30-5.03, P= 0.78; I 2 =12%). Similarly, there was no difference between the two stents for obstruction due to tissue growth (OR 0.86, 95%CI 0.51-1.44, P= 0.56; I 2 =7%) or by food (OR 0.33, 95%CI 0.10-1.06, P= 0.06; I 2 =23%). Incidence of bleeding (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.21-1.58, P= 0.28; I 2 =0%) and chest pain (OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.44-2.57, P= 0.89; I 2 =0%) was similar in the two groups. Sub-group analysis of RCTs and non-RCTs produced similar results. The overallrall quality of studies was not high. Conclusion: Our results indicate that there is no difference in technical success, stent migration, and stent obstruction, with FCSEMS or PCSEMS when used for palliative treatment of esophageal malignancy. Further RCTs are required to provide stronger evidence on this topic.
EP-2156 Assessment of Role of ILRT as palliative treatment in advanced esophageal cancer
