Implantation of a colorectal stent as a therapeutic approach in the treatment of esophageal leakage

BACKGROUND: While the mortality of esophageal surgery has decreased due to technological advancements, there is still a complication rate of about 30%. One of the main complications is the anastomotic leakage associated with a significant rate of morbidity and mortality. To close the leakage the efficacy of self-expanding stents (SES) has been shown in different studies. However, the high rate of stent migration limits the use of commercial available stents. In our case we were faced with the problem that the diameter of all available stents was too small to attach tightly to the mucosal wall of the esophagogastric anastomosis. CASE PRESENTATION: We used, for the first time to our knowledge, a metal stent designed for colorectal application in an extensive anastomotic leak after esophageal resection in a patient with an esophageal cancer. After primary surgery with subtotal esohagectomy the anastomotic leak was stented endoscopically with a Polyflex self-expanding covered plastic stent after no response to intensive conventional management. Even though the stent was placed correctly, the diameter of the Polyflex stent was too small to attach onto the wall of the esophagogastric anastomosis. Again surgery was performed with a thoracal resection of the esophageal remnant and a hand made anastomosis. Unfortunately, again an anastomotic leak was detected soon after. To close the leak we decided to use a covered colorectal stent (Hanarostent) with an inner diameter of 30 mm. Sixteen weeks later the stent was extracted and complete mucosal healing of the esophageal leak was observed. CONCLUSION: The stent implantation with a large wide diameter offers a good chance to close more extensive leaks and prevent stent migration

T-staging of rectal cancer: accuracy of 3.0 Tesla MRI compared with 1.5 Tesla

OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not accurate in discriminating T1-2 from borderline T3 rectal tumors. Higher resolution on 3 Tesla-(3T)-MRI could improve diagnostic performance for T-staging. The aim of this study was to determine whether 3T-MRI compared with 1.5 Tesla-(1.5T)-MRI improves the accuracy for the discrimination between T1-2 and borderline T3 rectal tumors and to evaluate reproducibility. METHODS: 13 patients with non-locally advanced rectal cancer underwent imaging with both 1.5T and 3T-MRI. Three readers with different expertise evaluated the images and predicted T-stage with a confidence level score. Receiver operator characteristics curves with areas under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic parameters were calculated. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were calculated with quadratic kappa-weighting. Histology was the reference standard. RESULTS: Seven patients had pT1-2 tumors and six had pT3 tumors. AUCs ranged from 0.66 to 0.87 at 1.5T vs. 0.52-0.82 at 3T. Mean overstaging rate was 43% at 1.5T and 57% at 3T (P = 0.23). Inter-observer agreement was kappa 0.50-0.71 at 1.5T vs. 0.15-0.68 at 3T. Intra-observer agreement was kappa 0.71 at 1.5T and 0.76 at 3T. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to compare 3T with 1.5T MRI for T-staging of rectal cancer within the same patients. Our results showed no difference between 3T and 1.5T-MRI for the distinction between T1-2 and borderline T3 tumors, regardless of expertise. The higher resolution at 3T-MRI did not aid in the distinction between desmoplasia in T1-2-tumors and tumor stranding in T3-tumors. Larger studies are needed to acknowledge these findings

Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in staging of oesophageal cancer. PubMed was searched to identify English-language articles published before January 2006 and reporting on diagnostic performance of EUS, CT, and/or FDG-PET in oesophageal cancer patients. Articles were included if absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, false-positive, and true-negative test results were available or derivable for regional, celiac, and abdominal lymph node metastases and/or distant metastases. Sensitivities and specificities were pooled using a random effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to study potential effects of study and patient characteristics. Random effects pooled sensitivities of EUS, CT, and FDG-PET for regional lymph node metastases were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75–0.84), 0.50 (0.41–0.60), and 0.57 (0.43–0.70), respectively, and specificities were 0.70 (0.65–0.75), 0.83 (0.77–0.89), and 0.85 (0.76–0.95), respectively. Diagnostic performance did not differ significantly across these tests. For detection of celiac lymph node metastases by EUS, sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (0.72–0.99) and 0.96 (0.92–1.00), respectively. For abdominal lymph node metastases by CT, these values were 0.42 (0.29–0.54) and 0.93 (0.86–1.00), respectively. For distant metastases, sensitivity and specificity were 0.71 (0.62–0.79) and 0.93 (0.89–0.97) for FDG-PET and 0.52 (0.33–0.71) and 0.91 (0.86–0.96) for CT, respectively. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET for distant metastases was significantly higher than that of CT, which was not significantly affected by study and patient characteristics. The results suggest that EUS, CT, and FDG-PET each play a distinctive role in the detection of metastases in oesophageal cancer patients. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, EUS is most sensitive, whereas CT and FDG-PET are more specific tests. For the evaluation of distant metastases, FDG-PET has probably a higher sensitivity than CT. Its combined use could however be of clinical value, with FDG-PET detecting possible metastases and CT confirming or excluding their presence and precisely determining the location(s)

Could lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy provide oncological providence for local resectional techniques for colon cancer? A review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endoscopic resectional techniques for colon cancer are undermined by their inability to determine lymph node status. This limits their application to only those lesions at the most minimal risk of lymphatic dissemination whereas their technical capacity could allow intraluminal or even transluminal address of larger lesions. Sentinel node biopsy may theoretically address this breach although the variability of its reported results for this disease is worrisome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were interrogated back to 1999 to identify all publications concerning lymphatic mapping for colon cancer with reference cross-checking for completeness. All reports were examined from the perspective of in vivo technique accuracy selectively in early stage disease (i.e. lesions potentially within the technical capacity of endoscopic resection).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-two studies detailing the experiences of 3390 patients were identified. Considerable variation in patient characteristics as well as in surgical and histological quality assurances were however evident among the studies identified. In addition, considerable contamination of the studies by inclusion of rectal cancer without subgroup separation was frequent. Indeed such is the heterogeneity of the publications to date, formal meta-analysis to pool patient cohorts in order to definitively ascertain technique accuracy in those with T1 and/or T2 cancer is not possible. Although lymphatic mapping in early stage neoplasia alone has rarely been specifically studied, those studies that included examination of false negative rates identified high T3/4 patient proportions and larger tumor size as being important confounders. Under selected circumstances however the technique seems to perform sufficiently reliably to allow it prompt consideration of its use to tailor operative extent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The specific question of whether sentinel node biopsy can augment the oncological propriety for endoscopic resective techniques (including Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery [NOTES]) cannot be definitively answered at present. Study heterogeneity may account for the variability evident in the results from different centers. Enhanced capacity (perhaps to the level necessary to consider selective avoidance of en bloc mesenteric resection) by its confinement to only early stage disease is plausible although not proven. Specific study of the technique in early stage tumors is clearly essential before proffering this approach.</p