Impact of radiotherapy on adverse events of self-expanding metallic stents in patients with esophageal cancer.

Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are considered the treatment of choice for the palliation of dysphagia and fistulas in inoperable esophageal neoplasms. However, the safety of SEMSs in patients who received or who will be submitted to radiotherapy (RT) is uncertain. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of RT on adverse events (AEs) in patients with esophageal cancer with SEMSs. This is a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary cancer hospital from 2009 to 2018. We collected information regarding RT, the histological type of the tumor, the model of SEMSs and AEs after stent placement. Three hundred twenty-three patients with malignant stenosis or fistula were treated with SEMSs. The predominant histological type was squamous cell carcinoma (79.6%). A total of 282 partially covered and 41 fully covered SEMSs were inserted. Of the 323 patients, 182 did not received RT, 118 received RT before SEMS placement and 23 after. Comparing the group that received RT before stent insertion with the group that did not, the first one presented a higher frequency of severe pain (9/118 7.6% vs. 3/182 1.6%; P = 0.02). The group treated with RT after stent placement had a higher risk of global AEs (13/23 56.5% vs. 63/182 34.6%; P = 0.019), ingrowth/overgrowth (6/23 26.1% vs. 21/182 11.5%; P = 0.045) and gastroesophageal reflux (2/23 8.7% vs. 2/182 1.1%; P = 0.034). Treatment with RT before stent placement in patients with inoperable esophageal neoplasm prolongs survival and is associated with an increased risk of severe chest pain. Treatment with RT of patients with an esophageal stent increases the frequency of minor, not life-threatening AEs.

Endoscopy infection control strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience from a tertiary cancer center in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Strategic planning for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) care has dominated the agenda of medical services, which have been further restricted by the need for minimizing viral transmission. Risk is particularly relevant in relation to endoscopy procedures. This study aimed to describe a contingency plan for a tertiary academic cancer center, define a strategy to prioritize and postpone examinations, and evaluate the infection rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the endoscopy unit of the Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo (ICESP). METHODS: We created a strategy to balance the risk of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and to mitigate the effects of postponing endoscopic procedures in oncological patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on all endoscopies between March and June 2020 compared with those during the same period in 2019 was carried out. All HCWs were interviewed to obtain clinical data and SARS-CoV-2 test results. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, there was a reduction of 55% in endoscopy cases in total. Colonoscopy was the most affected modality. The total infection rate among all HCWs was 38%. None of the senior digestive endoscopists had COVID-19. However, all bronchoscopists had been infected. One of three fellows had a serological diagnosis of COVID-19. Two-thirds of all nurses were infected, whereas half of all technicians were infected. CONCLUSIONS: In this pandemic scenario, all endoscopy services must prioritize the procedures that will be performed. It was possible to maintain some endoscopic procedures, including those meant to provide nutritional access, tissue diagnosis, and endoscopic resection. Personal protective equipment (PPE) seems effective in preventing transmission of COVID-19 from patients to digestive endoscopists. These measures can be useful in planning, even for pandemics in the future.

Endoscopy infection control strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience from a tertiary cancer center in Brazil

OBJECTIVES: Strategic planning for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) care has dominated the agenda of medical services, which have been further restricted by the need for minimizing viral transmission. Risk is particularly relevant in relation to endoscopy procedures. This study aimed to describe a contingency plan for a tertiary academic cancer center, define a strategy to prioritize and postpone examinations, and evaluate the infection rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the endoscopy unit of the Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo (ICESP). METHODS: We created a strategy to balance the risk of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and to mitigate the effects of postponing endoscopic procedures in oncological patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on all endoscopies between March and June 2020 compared with those during the same period in 2019 was carried out. All HCWs were interviewed to obtain clinical data and SARS-CoV-2 test results. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, there was a reduction of 55% in endoscopy cases in total. Colonoscopy was the most affected modality. The total infection rate among all HCWs was 38%. None of the senior digestive endoscopists had COVID-19. However, all bronchoscopists had been infected. One of three fellows had a serological diagnosis of COVID-19. Two-thirds of all nurses were infected, whereas half of all technicians were infected. CONCLUSIONS: In this pandemic scenario, all endoscopy services must prioritize the procedures that will be performed. It was possible to maintain some endoscopic procedures, including those meant to provide nutritional access, tissue diagnosis, and endoscopic resection. Personal protective equipment (PPE) seems effective in preventing transmission of COVID-19 from patients to digestive endoscopists. These measures can be useful in planning, even for pandemics in the future.

Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is associated with higher complication and mortality rates when compared to a general patient population. The pull technique is still the preferred technique worldwide but it has some limitations. The aim of this study is to compare the pull and introducer PEG techniques in patients with HNC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study is based on a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 309 patients with HNC who underwent PEG in the Cancer Institute of São Paulo. RESULTS: The procedure was performed with the standard endoscope in 205 patients and the introducer technique was used in 137 patients. There was one procedure-related mortality. Age, sex and albumin level were similar in both groups. However in the introducer technique group, patients had a higher tumor stage, a lower Karnofsky status, and presented more frequently with tracheostomy and trismus. Overall, major, minor, immediate and late complications and 30-day mortality rates were similar but the introducer technique group presented more minor bleeding and tube dysfunctions. CONCLUSION: The push and introducer PEG techniques seem to be both safe and effective but present different complication profiles. The choice of PEG technique in patients with HNC should be made individually.