Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- biliary stricture (1)
- delay (1)
- diagnosis (1)
- double-pigtail stents (1)
- endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (1)
- metastases (1)
- neuroendocrine (1)
- stent patency (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background and Aim: The main disadvantage of plastic stents is the high rate of stent occlusion. The usual replacement interval of biliary plastic stents is 3 months. This study aimed to investigate if a shorter interval of 6–8 weeks impacts the median premature exchange rate (mPER) in benign and malignant biliary strictures.
Methods: All cases with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and plastic stent placement were retrospectively analyzed since establishing an elective replacement interval of every 6–8 weeks at our institution and mPER was determined.
Results: A total of 3979 ERCPs (1199 patients) were analyzed, including 1262 (31.7%) malignant and 2717 (68.3%) benign cases, respectively. The median stent patency (mSP) was 41 days (range 14–120) for scheduled stent exchanges, whereas it was 17 days (1–75) for prematurely exchanged stents. The mPER was significantly higher for malignant (28.1%, 35–50%) compared with benign strictures (15.2%, 10–28%), P < 0.0001, respectively. mSP was significantly shorter in cases with only one stent (34 days [1–87] vs 41 days [1–120]) and in cases with only a 7-Fr stent (28 days [2–79]) compared with a larger stent (34 days [1–87], P = 0.001). Correspondingly, mPER was significantly higher in cases with only one stent (23% vs 16.2%, P < 0.0001) and only a 7-Fr stent (31.3% vs 22.4%, P = 0.03).
Conclusion: A shorter replacement interval does not seem to lead to a clinically meaningful reduction of mPER in benign and malignant strictures. Large stents and multiple stenting should be favored as possible.
Introduction: Scarce data exist for therapy regimens other than somatostatin analogues (SSA) and peptide receptor radiotherapy (PRRT) for siNET. We analyzed real world data for differences in survival according to therapy. Patients and methods: Analysis of 145 patients, diagnosed between 1993 and 2018 at a single institution, divided in treatment groups. Group (gr.) 0: no treatment (n = 10), gr 1: TACE and/or PRRT (n = 26), gr. 2: SSA (n = 32), gr. 3: SSA/PRRT (n = 8), gr. 4: chemotherapy (n = 8), gr. 5: not metastasized (at diagnosis), surgery only (n = 53), gr. 6 = metastasized (at diagnosis), surgery only (n = 10). Results: 45.5% female, median age 60 years (range, 27–84). A total of 125/145 patients with a resection of the primary tumor. For all patients, 1-year OS (%) was 93.8 (95%-CI: 90–98), 3-year OS = 84.3 (CI: 78–90) and 5-year OS = 77.5 (CI: 70–85). For analysis of survival according to therapy, only stage IV patients (baseline) that received treatment were included. Compared with reference gr. 2 (SSA only), HR for OS was 1.49 (p = 0.47) for gr. 1, 0.72 (p = 0.69) for gr. 3, 2.34 (p = 0.19) for gr. 4. The 5 y OS rate of patients whose primary tumor was resected (n = 125) was 73.1%, and without PTR was 33.3% (HR: 4.31; p = 0.003). Individual patients are represented in swimmer plots. Conclusions: For stage IV patients in this analysis (limited by low patient numbers in co. 3/4), multimodal treatment did not significantly improve survival over SSA treatment alone. A resection of primary tumor significantly improves survival.