Self-expandable metallic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas in patients with advanced esophageal cancer

Iatagan R. Josino; Bruno C. Martins; Andressa A. Machado; Gustavo R. de A. Lima; Martin A. C. Cordero; Amanda A. M. Pombo; Rubens A. A. Sallum; Ulysses Ribeiro Jr; Todd H. Baron; Fauze Maluf-Filho

doi:10.5946/ce.2022.297

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 56(6); 2023 > Article

Original Article Self-expandable metallic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas in patients with advanced esophageal cancer: Iatagan R. Josino^1,, Bruno C. Martins¹, Andressa A. Machado¹, Gustavo R. de A. Lima¹, Martin A. C. Cordero¹, Amanda A. M. Pombo¹, Rubens A. A. Sallum¹, Ulysses Ribeiro Jr¹, Todd H. Baron², Fauze Maluf-Filho^1,3,4; Clinical Endoscopy 2023;56(6):761-768.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.297
Published online: July 25, 2023

¹Department of Gastroenterology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

²Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

³Laboratório de Investigações Médicas 37, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

⁴National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brasília, Brazil

Correspondence: Iatagan R. Josino Department of Gastroenterology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Doutor Arnaldo Avenue, 251, São Paulo 01246-00, Brazil E-mail: iataganjosino@gmail.com

• Received: November 4, 2022 • Revised: March 8, 2023 • Accepted: March 10, 2023

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.

2,609 Views
119 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref
1 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Graphic abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

See letter "How to reduce fistula formation after self-expandable metallic stent insertion for treating malignant esophageal stricture?" in Volume 56 on page 735.

Abstract

Background/Aims
Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely adopted for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with malignant esophageal strictures. An important adverse event is the development of SEMS-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas (SEMS-ERFs). This study aimed to assess the risk factors related to the development of SEMS-ERF after SEMS placement in patients with esophageal cancer.
Methods
This retrospective study was performed at the Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo. All patients with malignant esophageal strictures who underwent esophageal SEMS placement between 2009 and 2019 were included in the study.
Results
Of the 335 patients, 37 (11.0%) developed SEMS-ERF, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Stent flare of 28 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15–5.51; p=0.02) and post-stent chemotherapy (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.01–4.00; p=0.05) were associated with an increased risk of developing SEMS-ERF, while lower-third tumors were a protective factor (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26–0.85; p=0.01). No difference was observed in overall survival.
Conclusions
The incidence of SEMS-ERFs was 11%, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Post-stent chemotherapy and a 28 mm stent flare were associated with a higher risk of SEMS-ERF.
Keywords: Esophageal fistula; Esophageal neoplasms; Self-expandable metallic stents

Graphic abstract

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal cancer is currently the eighth most common cancer worldwide, with an increasing incidence, particularly adenocarcinoma.¹ Unfortunately, more than half of the patients have inoperable tumors at diagnosis, requiring other treatment options, such as chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy (RT). Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are widely used in such cases.²

Although esophageal SEMS are safe, adverse events (AEs) are common, especially when stents remain in place for a longer duration, and occur in patients with longer survival.³ Esophagorespiratory fistula (ERF) is one of the most feared AEs, with a reported prevalence of 9%–10%.²^,⁴ SEMS-induced ERF (SEMS-ERF) has a major impact on the quality of life, morbidity, and mortality of these patients as it may lead to pulmonary sepsis and death.⁵

To date, data regarding SEMS-ERFs are scarce. A retrospective study including patients with benign and malignant diseases who underwent SEMS placement reported a higher risk of SEMS-ERF in patients with benign anastomotic strictures, radiation therapy, and a higher comorbidity score index, with a 30-day mortality of >50%.⁶ A study that specifically addressed the risk factors for SEMS-ERF and its outcomes in patients with malignant diseases is lacking.

This study aimed to assess the risk factors for the development of SEMS-ERF after esophageal SEMS placement in patients with malignant esophageal strictures.

METHODS

Study population

This retrospective study was performed at the Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Brazil. All patients with malignant esophageal strictures who underwent esophageal SEMS placement between 2009 and 2019 were eligible. The inclusion criteria were patients with inoperable stage IV esophageal or extra-esophageal cancer receiving esophageal stent placement for the palliation of dysphagia or malignant esophageal fistulas. Exclusion criteria were previous esophagectomy and benign esophageal strictures.

SEMS placement

For stent placement, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed in the supine position under general anesthesia using a standard forward-view endoscope (GIFH-180; Olympus America). A guidewire was placed in the stomach and the stent delivery system was inserted over the guidewire under fluoroscopic guidance. Stents were deployed under fluoroscopic guidance, and direct endoscopic visualization was performed for stents placed at the proximal esophagus to ensure a proper distance from the cricopharyngeal muscle. When a malignant fistula was present, an esophagogram was obtained after stent deployment to confirm the fistula sealing.

The length of the stent was selected to cover 2 cm above and 2 cm below the tumor. Stents with a cervical profile were preferred for lesions located in the proximal esophagus (Choostent; MI Tech) but were not used uniformly. For lesions in the middle esophagus, we used partially or fully covered stents with a body diameter of 18 to 23 mm (Wallflex and Ultraflex, Boston Scientific; Evolution, Cook Medical; Hanarostent, MI Tech; Endoflex, Voerde). For distal lesions with involvement of the gastroesophageal junction, we preferred to place partially covered stents with anti-reflux valves (Hanarostent Esophagus Valve; MI Tech), although not uniformly.

Resumption of oral liquid intake was allowed on the day after the procedure, and progression to semi-solid and solid foods was performed according to patient tolerance. Follow-up visits were conducted at regular intervals until the patient died.

Assessment of clinical outcomes

Information regarding sex, age, histological type of lesion, tumor location, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, previous fistula, indication for stent placement, technical success, time to occurrence of SEMS-ERF, time to death, treatment with chemotherapy and/or RT, stent type, model, and size were collected.

SEMS-ERF was suspected when patients presented with symptoms of coughing after liquid intake and/or repeated pulmonary infections. The diagnosis was confirmed by one or more of the following examinations: esophagography, computed tomography, EGD, or bronchoscopy (Fig. 1).

Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables were described by calculating the measures of central tendency and dispersion. For categorical variables, absolute and relative frequencies were used. When necessary, quantitative variables were categorized based on the percentiles of the distribution of values (the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles). To verify the association between categorical variables, we used the chi-squared test or Fisher exact test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model. Mortality was adopted for competing risk analysis. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the curves were compared using the log-rank test. For all analyses, an alpha error of 5% was used. Results were considered statistically significant at p<0.05.

Ethical statements

Informed consent was obtained from all the patients or their family members before stent placement. This study was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo (registration number: NP038/14).

RESULTS

Of the 342 patients who underwent esophageal SEMS placement, seven were excluded because the SEMS indication was anastomotic fistula or post-esophagectomy stenosis. Of the remaining 335 patients, 37 (11.0%) developed a SEMS-ERF. The median time to ERF development was 129 days (range, 35–646 days) (Fig. 2).

Table 1 summarizes the patients’ characteristics and SEMS-ERF incidence. The majority of the patients were male (80.3%), with a mean age of 61.6 years (range, 21–94 years). Most patients had squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (79.4%), and 55.5% of all the tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus. Forty-nine patients (14.6%) had adenocarcinoma; 91% were located in the distal esophagus, and 9% were located in the middle esophagus. Seventy-three percent of the patients received chemotherapy before stent placement, and 46.9% had prior RT. Partially covered stents were used in 86% of the patients, and 56.4% of the stents had a flare diameter <28 mm.

Risk factors associated with SEMS-ERF

In the Cox HR analysis, only stent flare of 28 mm (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.40–6.35; p=0.005) was a risk factor for SEMS-ERF. Tumors located in the lower third portion of the esophagus were protective factors (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.30–0.96; p=0.03). Table 2 summarizes the analyzed variables.

Using mortality as a competing risk factor, the analysis indicated a stent flare of 28 mm (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15–5.51; p=0.02) and post-stent chemotherapy (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.01–4.00; p=0.05) as risk factors for SEMS-ERF. Lower-third portion tumors were identified as a protective factor (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26–0.85; p=0.01). Table 3 summarizes the analysis.

Risk factors for SEMS-ERF in patients with SCC

Since no patient with adenocarcinoma developed SEMS-ERF, a secondary analysis was performed, excluding these patients. In the Cox HR analysis, only stent flare of 28 mm (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.40–6.35; p=0.005) was a risk factor for SEMS-ERF, while lower-third tumors were a protective factor (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.30–0.96, p=0.03). Table 4 summarizes the analysis.

Using mortality as a competing risk factor, the analysis identified a stent flare of 28 mm (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.21–7.03; p=0.02) and post-stent chemotherapy (HR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.63–5.71; p=0.02) as risk factors for SEMS-ERF. Table 5 summarizes the analyzed variables.

Management of SEMS-ERF

Regarding the approach of patients diagnosed with SEMS-ERF (n=37), 14 patients received a second SEMS placed over the fistula to provide a seal. Successful fistula sealing was achieved in all patients, and all patients were able to resume oral feeding. The remaining 23 patients were considered too debilitated to resume oral feeding even if the fistula was successfully sealed with a second stent. Nineteen of these patients were treated with feeding tube placement, three underwent gastrostomy, and one underwent a jejunostomy.

Survival

The median overall survival was 11.8 months, ranging from 0.4–100 months). In patients with SEMS-ERF, the median survival was 16.3 months, while in patients without SEMS-ERF, it was 11.2 months (log-rank test, p=0.053; Fig. 3). When patients with adenocarcinoma were excluded from the group without SEMS-ERF, the median survivals was 16.3 months and 11 months in SEMS-ERF and without SEMS-ERF, respectively (log-rank test, p=0.067; Fig. 3). The median survival after the development of SEMS-ERF was 3.6 months, ranging from 1 to 455 days.

DISCUSSION

Currently, SEMS placement is the most accepted and widely adopted method for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer.⁷^-⁹ It is also the preferred intervention for malignant esophageal fistulas.¹⁰^,¹¹ As already reported in previous studies,²^,⁴^,¹²^,¹³ SEMS-ERF is an expected AE in the palliative treatment of dysphagia. We could not determine the significant impact of the SEMS-ERF on mortality. However, 62.2% (23/37) of patients diagnosed with SEMS-ERF were not clinically eligible for a second stent, suggesting an increase in morbidity caused by the fistula. Despite its importance, little is known about what leads to fistula development. This is the first study to assess the risk factors for SEMS-ERF, specifically in patients with malignant disease.

In our study, the incidence of SEMS-ERFs was 11.0% (37/335). Homann et al.⁴ analyzed delayed (>4 weeks) AEs of stent placement in 133 patients with esophageal cancer and reported SEMS-ERFs in 9% of them. A retrospective study including patients with benign and malignant indications for SEMS reported an overall incidence of 4%.⁶ However, only 9% of the patients had the malignant disease. Esophageal (upper-third portion) cancer has been identified as a risk factor for SEMS-ERF development. In our study, we could not corroborate these data; however, lower-third portion tumors were found to be protective factors.

The stent diameter was identified as a risk factor for the development of SEMS-ERFs. Although another study⁶ analyzed stent size in patients with ERF, they were not able to find a significant difference, possibly because of the small sample size (n=21). In our analysis, a stent flare diameter of 28 mm (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15–5.51; p=0.02) showed a higher risk of ERF development. In a small series, Bethge et al.¹⁴ analyzed microscopical samples and described necrosis and ischemia at the sites of contact between the stent and esophageal mucosa. In our opinion, this suggests that the development of SEMS-ERF is more related to stent-induced ischemia rather than the presence of infiltrative neoplasia.

The histological type has not been highlighted as an important factor in SEMS-ERF development in the literature. Some studies⁴^-⁶ reported data on the histological type, but there was no comparison between groups. In our study, we found no cases of SEMS-ERF in patients with adenocarcinoma (0/49), whereas 35 of the 37 SEMS-ERF cases were reported in patients with SCC. In our opinion, this finding can be explained by tumor location, as adenocarcinoma is more common in the lower-third esophagus, away from the airway, and therefore, less likely to develop SEMS-ERF. We also performed a separate analysis of patients with SCC; however, the results were similar to those of the overall analysis.

The impact of chemotherapy on the development of SEMS-related AEs remains controversial. Medeiros et al.³ found a trend toward higher AE rates in patients who received adjuvant therapy. Other studies⁶^,⁷ found an association between prior chemotherapy and stent-related AEs, especially migration. In our study, we found an association between post-stent placement chemotherapy and the development of SEMS-ERF (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.01–4.00; p=0.05). This relationship was not observed in patients who received combined therapy (RT+chemotherapy). In our opinion, patients with a better performance status are more likely to receive systemic therapy. With longer survival, these patients are more likely to live long enough to develop ERF, as the median time for ERF development was 129 days. However, we could not find data statistically supporting the relationship between longer survival and SEMS-ERF development.

The effect of RT on the development of stent-related AE is a matter of intense debate. Many studies¹⁵^-¹⁹ reported a higher risk of overall AEs in patients who underwent RT after stent placement. A recent guideline²⁰ advises against stent placement concomitant with RT. However, our experience²¹ is in agreement with other studies²² that reported that only minor AEs (mainly mild chest pain) occurred more frequently in patients receiving RT. Regarding the risk of ERF, Bick et al.⁶ showed a 9.4-fold greater chance of ERF development in patients with a history of RT. In our study, we found no relationship between RT and a higher risk of ERF, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

Our study had some limitations, as it was a single-center retrospective study. Quality-of-life questionnaires were not applied, limiting the assessment of SEMS-ERF morbidity. Over the years, many types, sizes, and brands of stents have been used, implicating heterogeneity and possible biases. In addition, it was not possible to include disease progression as a risk factor for SEMS-ERF because all patients included in this study already had advanced terminal cancer. However, we managed to present a study with the largest sample of SEMS-ERFs to date, adding information to the limited literature on this subject.

In conclusion, the incidence of SEMS-ERFs in our study was 11%, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Post-stent chemotherapy and a 28 mm stent flare were associated with a higher risk of SEMS-ERF. For patients with these risk factors undergoing stent placement, stents with smaller flare diameters are recommended. Clinicians should maintain a high level of suspicion for SEMS-ERF since early intervention with additional stent placement may reduce morbidity.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all nurses, doctors, and other employees of the GI Endoscopy Department at the Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo. It requires great individual commitment to achieve great teamwork. We also appreciate all other professionals involved in the care of patients included in this study for their indirect contribution.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: IRJ, BCM, AAM, FMF; Data curation: IRJ, BCM, AAM, GRAL, MACC, AAMP; Formal analysis: IRJ, BCM, AAM, GRAL, MACC, AAMP; Supervision: RAAS, UR, THB, FMF; Validation: RAAS, UR, THB, FMF; Writing–original draft: IRJ, BM, FMF; Writing–review & editing: all authors.

Fig. 1.

Bronchoscopy showing the proximal flare of an esophageal Self-expandable metal stent partially inside the tracheal lumen.

Fig. 2.

Flowchart of patients included in the study. SEMS, self-expandable metallic stent; SEMS-ERF, SEMS-induced esophagorespiratory fistula.

Fig. 3.

Kaplan-Meier overall survival curve. (A) All patients included. (B) Only patients with squamous cell carcinoma.

Table 1.

Patients’ characteristics and SEMS-ERF incidence (n=335)

Characteristic	Value
Sex
Female	66 (19.7)
Male	269 (80.3)
ECOG
0	13 (3.9)
1	108 (32.2)
2	140 (41.8)
3	71 (21.2)
4	3 (0.9)
Histological type
Adenocarcinoma	49 (14.6)
Squamous cell carcinoma	266 (79.4)
Extra-esophageal cancer	20 (6.0)
Tumor location
Lower-third	122 (36.4)
Middle-third	186 (55.5)
Upper-third	27 (8.1)
Stent indication
Malignant stenosis	247 (73.7)
Fistula	88 (26.3)
Pre-stent chemotherapy	246 (73.4)
Pre-stent radiotherapy	157 (46.9)
Post-stent chemotherapy	151 (45.1)
Post-stent radiotherapy	36 (10.7)
Stent type
Partially covered	289 (86.3)
Fully covered	46 (13.7)
Previous fistula	89 (26.5)
Stent brand
Evolution	90 (26.9)
Hanarostent	54 (16.1)
Wallflex	150 (44.8)
Others	41 (12.2)
Stent flare (mm)
28	189 (56.4)
>28	146 (43.6)
SEMS-ERF	37 (11.0)

Values are presented as number (%).

SEMS-ERF, self-expandable metalic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistula; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Table 2.

Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula: Cox HR analysis

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Sex
Female	Ref.
Male	3.4 (0.83–8.21)	0.22
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.4 (0.19–1.77)	0.34
3–4	0.6 (0.33–1.58)	0.18
Age >65 yr	0.5 (0.25–1.38)	0.22
Tumor location
Lower-third	0.5 (0.30–0.96)	0.03
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.1 (0.08–1.31)	0.03
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.3 (0.68–2.12)	0.61
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.0 (0.06–2.91)	0.87
Post-stent chemotherapy	1.0 (0.50–2.06)	0.04
Post-stent radiotherapy	1.0 (0.81–3.28)	0.36
Previous fistula	0.6 (0.05–1.85)	0.39
Stent flare 28 mm	3.0 (1.40–6.35)	0.005

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.

Table 3.

Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula: Cox HR analysis using mortality as a competing risk factor

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Male, sex	2.7 (0.71–6.39)	0.41
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.3 (0.09–2.18)	0.11
3–4	0.7 (0.26–2.92)	0.17
Age >65 yr	0.6 (0.26–1.44)	0.27
Tumor location
Lower-third	0.5 (0.26–0.85)	0.01
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.3 (0.06–1.72)	0.37
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.1 (0.08–2.88)	0.89
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.2 (0.08–3.30)	0.51
Post-stent radiotherapy	1.0 (0.05–4.49)	0.46
Post-stent chemotherapy	2.0 (1.01–4.00)	0.05
Previous fistula	0.5 (0.04–2.31)	0.83
Stent flare 28 mm	2.0 (1.15–5.51)	0.02

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.

Table 4.

Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula in patients with squamous cell carcinoma: Cox HR analysis

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Male, sex	2.0 (0.66–7.31)	0.16
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.5 (0.28–2.23)	0.31
3–4	0.3 (0.09–1.34)	0.19
Age >65 yr	0.5 (0.25–1.38)	0.22
Tumor location
Lower-third	0.5 (0.30–0.96)	0.03
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.4 (0.08–1.11)	0.17
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.2 (0.90–2.01)	0.85
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.2 (0.64–2.08)	0.77
Post-stent chemotherapy	1.2 (0.83–3.13)	0.18
Post-stent radiotherapy	1.1 (0.22–2.39)	0.99
Previous fistula	0.9 (0.23–1.78)	0.47
Stent flare 28 mm	3.0 (1.40–6.35)	0.005

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.

Table 5.

Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula in patients with squamous cell carcinoma: Cox HR analysis using mortality as a competing risk factor

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Male, sex	1.7 (0.05–2.13)	0.49
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.3 (0.09–1.21)	0.18
3–4	1.0 (0.75–1.93)	0.22
Age >65 yr	0.6 (0.26–1.44)	0.27
Tumor location
Lower-third	1.1 (0.40–1.72)	0.09
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.5 (0.07–1.15)	0.52
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.4 (0.78–2.34)	0.86
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.7 (0.56–3.13)	0.81
Post-stent chemotherapy	3.3 (1.63–5.71)	0.02
Post-stent radiotherapy	2.0 (0.81–5.59)	0.68
Previous fistula	0.7 (0.11–1.53)	0.38
Stent flare 28 mm	3.0 (2.21–7.03)	0.02

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.

REFERENCES

1. Napier KJ, Scheerer M, Misra S. Esophageal cancer: a review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, staging workup and treatment modalities. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2014;6:112–120.Article PubMed PMC
2. Parker RK, White RE, Topazian M, et al. Stents for proximal esophageal cancer: a case-control study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1098–1105.Article PubMed
3. Medeiros VS, Martins BC, Lenz L, et al. Adverse events of self-expandable esophageal metallic stents in patients with long-term survival from advanced malignant disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:299–306.Article PubMed
4. Homann N, Noftz MR, Klingenberg-Noftz RD, et al. Delayed complications after placement of self-expanding stents in malignant esophageal obstruction: treatment strategies and survival rate. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:334–340.Article PubMed PDF
5. Lenz CJ, Bick BL, Katzka D, et al. Esophagorespiratory fistulas: survival and outcomes of treatment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018;52:131–136.Article PubMed
6. Bick BL, Song LM, Buttar NS, et al. Stent-associated esophagorespiratory fistulas: incidence and risk factors. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:181–189.Article PubMed
7. Nagaraja V, Cox MR, Eslick GD. Safety and efficacy of esophageal stents preceding or during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol 2014;5:119–126.PubMed PMC
8. Sreedharan A, Harris K, Crellin A, et al. Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(4):CD005048.Article
9. Raijman I, Siddique I, Ajani J, et al. Palliation of malignant dysphagia and fistulae with coated expandable metal stents: experience with 101 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:172–179.Article PubMed
10. Chen YH, Li SH, Chiu YC, et al. Comparative study of esophageal stent and feeding gastrostomy/jejunostomy for tracheoesophageal fistula caused by esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS One 2012;7:e42766.Article PubMed PMC
11. Na HK, Song HY, Kim JH, et al. How to design the optimal self-expandable oesophageal metallic stents: 22 years of experience in 645 patients with malignant strictures. Eur Radiol 2013;23:786–796.Article PubMed PDF
12. Ross WA, Alkassab F, Lynch PM, et al. Evolving role of self-expanding metal stents in the treatment of malignant dysphagia and fistulas. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:70–76.Article PubMed
13. Ribeiro MS, da Costa Martins B, Simas de Lima M, et al. Self-expandable metal stent for malignant esophagorespiratory fistula: predictive factors associated with clinical failure. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:390–396.Article PubMed
14. Bethge N, Sommer A, Gross U, et al. Human tissue responses to metal stents implanted in vivo for the palliation of malignant stenoses. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:596–602.Article PubMed
15. Javed A, Pal S, Dash NR, et al. Palliative stenting with or without radiotherapy for inoperable esophageal carcinoma: a randomized trial. J Gastrointest Cancer 2012;43:63–69.Article PubMed PDF
16. Park JY, Shin JH, Song HY, et al. Airway complications after covered stent placement for malignant esophageal stricture: special reference to radiation therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:453–459.Article PubMed
17. Kim KY, Tsauo J, Song HY, et al. Self-expandable metallic stent placement for the palliation of esophageal cancer. J Korean Med Sci 2017;32:1062–1071.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Nishimura Y, Nagata K, Katano S, et al. Severe complications in advanced esophageal cancer treated with radiotherapy after intubation of esophageal stents: a questionnaire survey of the Japanese Society for Esophageal Diseases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:1327–1332.Article PubMed
19. Kinsman KJ, DeGregorio BT, Katon RM, et al. Prior radiation and chemotherapy increase the risk of life-threatening complications after insertion of metallic stents for esophagogastric malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:196–203.Article PubMed
20. Spaander MC, Baron TH, Siersema PD, et al. Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2016;48:939–948.Article PubMed
21. Machado AA, da Costa Martins B, Lima GR, et al. Impact of radiotherapy (RT) on adverse events of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) in patients with esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:AB149.Article
22. Homs MY, Hansen BE, van Blankenstein M, et al. Prior radiation and/or chemotherapy has no effect on the outcome of metal stent placement for oesophagogastric carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;16:163–170.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Clinical Implications of Circulating Tumor Cells in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Cancer-Draining Blood Versus Peripheral Blood
Dong Chan Joo, Gwang Ha Kim, Hoseok I, Su Jin Park, Moon Won Lee, Bong Eun Lee
Cancers.2024; 16(16): 2921. CrossRef
How to reduce fistula formation after self-expandable metallic stent insertion for treating malignant esophageal stricture?
Kwang Bum Cho
Clinical Endoscopy.2023; 56(6): 735. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Self-expandable metallic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas in patients with advanced esophageal cancer

Clin Endosc. 2023;56(6):761-768. Published online July 25, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.297

XML Download

Figure

Self-expandable metallic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas in patients with advanced esophageal cancer

Fig. 1. Bronchoscopy showing the proximal flare of an esophageal Self-expandable metal stent partially inside the tracheal lumen.

Fig. 2. Flowchart of patients included in the study. SEMS, self-expandable metallic stent; SEMS-ERF, SEMS-induced esophagorespiratory fistula.

Fig. 3. Kaplan-Meier overall survival curve. (A) All patients included. (B) Only patients with squamous cell carcinoma.

Graphical abstract

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Graphical abstract

Self-expandable metallic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas in patients with advanced esophageal cancer

Characteristic	Value
Sex
Female	66 (19.7)
Male	269 (80.3)
ECOG
0	13 (3.9)
1	108 (32.2)
2	140 (41.8)
3	71 (21.2)
4	3 (0.9)
Histological type
Adenocarcinoma	49 (14.6)
Squamous cell carcinoma	266 (79.4)
Extra-esophageal cancer	20 (6.0)
Tumor location
Lower-third	122 (36.4)
Middle-third	186 (55.5)
Upper-third	27 (8.1)
Stent indication
Malignant stenosis	247 (73.7)
Fistula	88 (26.3)
Pre-stent chemotherapy	246 (73.4)
Pre-stent radiotherapy	157 (46.9)
Post-stent chemotherapy	151 (45.1)
Post-stent radiotherapy	36 (10.7)
Stent type
Partially covered	289 (86.3)
Fully covered	46 (13.7)
Previous fistula	89 (26.5)
Stent brand
Evolution	90 (26.9)
Hanarostent	54 (16.1)
Wallflex	150 (44.8)
Others	41 (12.2)
Stent flare (mm)
28	189 (56.4)
>28	146 (43.6)
SEMS-ERF	37 (11.0)

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Sex
Female	Ref.
Male	3.4 (0.83–8.21)	0.22
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.4 (0.19–1.77)	0.34
3–4	0.6 (0.33–1.58)	0.18
Age >65 yr	0.5 (0.25–1.38)	0.22
Tumor location
Lower-third	0.5 (0.30–0.96)	0.03
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.1 (0.08–1.31)	0.03
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.3 (0.68–2.12)	0.61
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.0 (0.06–2.91)	0.87
Post-stent chemotherapy	1.0 (0.50–2.06)	0.04
Post-stent radiotherapy	1.0 (0.81–3.28)	0.36
Previous fistula	0.6 (0.05–1.85)	0.39
Stent flare 28 mm	3.0 (1.40–6.35)	0.005

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Male, sex	2.7 (0.71–6.39)	0.41
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.3 (0.09–2.18)	0.11
3–4	0.7 (0.26–2.92)	0.17
Age >65 yr	0.6 (0.26–1.44)	0.27
Tumor location
Lower-third	0.5 (0.26–0.85)	0.01
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.3 (0.06–1.72)	0.37
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.1 (0.08–2.88)	0.89
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.2 (0.08–3.30)	0.51
Post-stent radiotherapy	1.0 (0.05–4.49)	0.46
Post-stent chemotherapy	2.0 (1.01–4.00)	0.05
Previous fistula	0.5 (0.04–2.31)	0.83
Stent flare 28 mm	2.0 (1.15–5.51)	0.02

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Male, sex	2.0 (0.66–7.31)	0.16
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.5 (0.28–2.23)	0.31
3–4	0.3 (0.09–1.34)	0.19
Age >65 yr	0.5 (0.25–1.38)	0.22
Tumor location
Lower-third	0.5 (0.30–0.96)	0.03
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.4 (0.08–1.11)	0.17
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.2 (0.90–2.01)	0.85
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.2 (0.64–2.08)	0.77
Post-stent chemotherapy	1.2 (0.83–3.13)	0.18
Post-stent radiotherapy	1.1 (0.22–2.39)	0.99
Previous fistula	0.9 (0.23–1.78)	0.47
Stent flare 28 mm	3.0 (1.40–6.35)	0.005

Variable	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Male, sex	1.7 (0.05–2.13)	0.49
ECOG scale
0–1	Ref.
2	0.3 (0.09–1.21)	0.18
3–4	1.0 (0.75–1.93)	0.22
Age >65 yr	0.6 (0.26–1.44)	0.27
Tumor location
Lower-third	1.1 (0.40–1.72)	0.09
Stent type
Partially covered	Ref.
Fully covered	0.5 (0.07–1.15)	0.52
Pre-stent chemotherapy	1.4 (0.78–2.34)	0.86
Pre-stent radiotherapy	1.7 (0.56–3.13)	0.81
Post-stent chemotherapy	3.3 (1.63–5.71)	0.02
Post-stent radiotherapy	2.0 (0.81–5.59)	0.68
Previous fistula	0.7 (0.11–1.53)	0.38
Stent flare 28 mm	3.0 (2.21–7.03)	0.02

Table 1. Patients’ characteristics and SEMS-ERF incidence (n=335)

Values are presented as number (%).

SEMS-ERF, self-expandable metalic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistula; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Table 2. Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula: Cox HR analysis

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.

Table 3. Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula: Cox HR analysis using mortality as a competing risk factor

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.

Table 4. Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula in patients with squamous cell carcinoma: Cox HR analysis

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.

Table 5. Risk factors for the occurrence of fistula in patients with squamous cell carcinoma: Cox HR analysis using mortality as a competing risk factor

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ref., reference.