Beyond Obstruction: Evaluating Self-Expandable Metallic Stents (SEMSs) vs. Emergency Surgery for Challenging pT4 Obstructive Colon Cancer: Multicentre Retrospective Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: Colon cancer presents as an obstruction in almost 30% of patients. Self-expandable metallic stents emerged as an alternative to emergency surgery, despite early controversies around their use. Improved techniques led to stent incorporation in clinical guidelines. Our objective is to compare colectomies performed after the insertion of self-expandable metallic stents versus emergency surgeries in pT4 obstructive left colon cancer, analysing postoperative and oncological outcomes. Methods: This is an observational retrospective multicentre study involving 50 hospitals and analysing data from patients with pT4 obstructive tumours treated for curative intent between 2015 and 2017. Patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer were included, with exclusion criteria being palliative surgery or incomplete resection. Primary outcomes were local, peritoneal, and systemic recurrence rates, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications and the rate of surgeries without major complications. Results: In total, 196 patients were analysed, 128 undergoing emergency surgery and 68 receiving colonic stents. Stents more frequently allowed for minimally invasive surgeries: 33.8% vs. 4.7% (p < 0.01). The stent group showed fewer major complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3) at 4.5% vs. 22.4% (p < 0.01), fewer infectious complications at 13.2% vs. 23.1% (p = 0.1), and fewer organ-space infections at 3.3% vs. 15.9% (p = 0.03). No significant differences in recurrence rates, 29.4% vs. 28.1% (p = 0.8); disease-free survival, 44.5 vs. 44.3 months (p = 0.5); or overall survival, 50.5 vs. 47.6 months (p = 0.4), were found between groups. Conclusions: Self-expandable metallic stents are a safe alternative for pT4 obstructive left colon cancer, improving postoperative outcomes without compromising short- and medium-term oncological results. Consideration of experienced clinicians and potential referral to centres with advanced stenting capabilities may enhance patient care.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.