English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Stent insertion is a feasible and safe palliative management for advanced unresectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of radioactive stent for unresectable esophageal cancer compared with conventional stent. Systematic searches of the PubMed and Web of science are dated from their beginning to January 25, 2016. Studies that compared radioactive stent with conventional stent for unresectable esophageal cancer were included. The outcomes were postimplantation survival, relief of dysphagia, and complications related to stent implant. Six studies with 539 patients were included. All of them used stent equipped with radioactive iodine beads as a radioactive stent. The pooled weighted mean difference for median survival was 2.734 months (95% CI 1.710-3.775; Z = 5.21, P = 0.000) between two groups. The 1,3,6 month survival rates were higher in radioactive stents than conventional stent, with the pooled ORs 3.216 (95% CI 1.293-7.999; Z = 2.51, P = 0.012), 3.095 (95% CI 1.908-5.020; Z = 4.58, P = 0.000), and 7.503 (95% CI 2.206- 25.516; Z = 3.23, P = 0.001, respectively). The pooled hazard ratio was 0.464 (95% CI 0.328-0.655; Z = 4.35, P = 0.000) between two groups. For relief of dysphagia, two stents all have good relief of the dysphagia effect, but radioactive stent showed a better effect at 3, 6 months follow-up after implantation. For complications related to stent implant, no significant differences were found between two stents in terms of severe chest pain (30.0% vs. 35.7%, OR 0.765, 95% CI 0.490-1.196), gastroesophageal reflux (18.6% vs. 16.1%, OR 1.188, 95% CI 0.453-3.115), fever (12.1% vs. 12.1%, OR 1.014, 95% CI 0.332-3.097), bleeding (16.7% vs. 14.2%, OR 1.201, 95% CI 0.645-2.236), perforation or fistula (6.1% vs. 9.0%, OR 0.658, 95% CI 0.291-1.486), pneumonia (10.7% vs. 14.1%, OR 0.724, 95% CI 0.343-1.526), stent migration (7.0% vs. 10.2%, OR 0.651, 95% CI 0.220-1.924), and restenosis (24.2% vs. 20.6%, OR 1.228, 95% CI 0.674-2.239). Radioactive stent insertion had potential benefits for palliative management for patients with unresectable esophageal cancer. This method prolonged survival and dysphagia relief period without more complications. However, this conclusion should be confirmed by more trials.

Radioactive self-expanding stents for palliative management of unresectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis