Risk factors and risk reduction of malignant seeding of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy track from pharyngoesophageal malignancy: a review of all 44 known reported cases
- PMID: 17488255
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01227.x
Risk factors and risk reduction of malignant seeding of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy track from pharyngoesophageal malignancy: a review of all 44 known reported cases
Abstract
Aim: To comprehensively review all known reported cases of stomal metastases after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) to systematically identify risk factors for this complication and to develop strategies for reducing this risk.
Methods: Reported cases were identified by computerized literature searches. Criteria for risk factors for stomal metastases included: a substantially higher relative rate of this factor in patients with stomal metastases than expected from pharyngoesophageal malignancy in general, and biologic plausibility of this phenomenon.
Literature review: Review of all 44 known stomal metastases revealed the following. The mean patient age was 59.0+/-10.0 (SD) yr, and 79% of patients were male. Pathologically proven stomal metastases were located in the abdominal wall (PEG exit site) in 63%, in the gastric wall (PEG entrance site) in 7%, and in both walls in 30%. Mean survival after diagnosis was only 4.3+/-3.8 months. Pathologic risk factors for stomal metastases included: (a) pharyngoesophageal location of primary cancer (in 100% of cases, 0% other locations); (b) squamous cell histology (in 98%, adenocarcinoma in 2%); (c) poorly or moderately differentiated histology (in 92%, well differentiated in 8%); (d) advanced pathologic stage (in 97%, early stage in 3%); and (e) large primary cancer size at diagnosis (mean diameter 4.2+/-2.3 cm). These risk factors appeared to be quantitatively large (e.g., 98% of cases had squamous histology vs 50% expected rate, odds ratio 40.1, OR CI 6.31-246.4, P<0.0001). Therapeutic risk factors for stomal metastases included: (a) endoscopic PEG placement (in 98%, surgical gastrostomy in 2%); (b) pull-string PEG technique (in 98%, push-guidewire in 2%, direct-introducer in 0%); (c) primary cancer untreated or known local recurrence after treatment before PEG (in 87%); and (d) time>or=3 months after PEG insertion (in 100%, <3 months in 0%; mean interval 7.8+/-5.2 months after PEG). Four of the currently reported risk factors are novel (pathologic factors d,e; therapeutic factors a,d).
Conclusions: Strong risk factors for stomal metastases include: pharyngoesophageal primary cancer, squamous cell histology, less well-differentiated cancer, large size, and advanced cancer stage. The risk may be reduced in patients with risk factors by radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or cancer surgery before PEG; by substituting the push-guidewire for the pull-string technique for PEG; and possibly by use of a sheath with the pull-string technique.
Similar articles
-
Prospective evaluation of malignant cell seeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with oropharyngeal/esophageal cancers.Endoscopy. 2013 Jul;45(7):526-31. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1344023. Epub 2013 Jun 18. Endoscopy. 2013. PMID: 23780843 Clinical Trial.
-
Seeding of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tract from esophageal squamous cell cancer presenting as an acutely bleeding malignant gastric ulcer: a novel clinicoendoscopic presentation.South Med J. 2008 Jan;101(1):35-9. doi: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31815d28d2. South Med J. 2008. PMID: 18176289
-
[Primary operative gastrostomy or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in progressive oesophageal carcinomas? A case report on abdominal wall metastases following PEG].Chirurg. 2002 Nov;73(11):1132-5. doi: 10.1007/s00104-002-0523-4. Chirurg. 2002. PMID: 12430066 German.
-
Metastatic head and neck carcinoma to a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site.Head Neck. 2005 Apr;27(4):339-43. doi: 10.1002/hed.20159. Head Neck. 2005. PMID: 15712297 Review.
-
[Metastasis of an esophageal carcinoma at a PEG site--case report and review of the literature].Zentralbl Chir. 2009 Sep;134(5):481-5. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1098769. Epub 2009 Sep 15. Zentralbl Chir. 2009. PMID: 19757350 Review. German.
Cited by
-
Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Versus Radiological Gastrostomy in Patients Unable to Undergo Transoral Endoscopic Pull Gastrostomy.Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Mar;68(3):852-859. doi: 10.1007/s10620-022-07569-7. Epub 2022 Jun 16. Dig Dis Sci. 2023. PMID: 35708794
-
Nutritional Support of Cancer Patients without Oral Feeding: How to Select the Most Effective Technique?GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr;27(3):172-184. doi: 10.1159/000502981. Epub 2019 Oct 7. GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2020. PMID: 32509923 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Rare Abdominal Wall Metastasis following Curative Resection of Gastric Cancer: What Can Be Learned from the Use of Percutaneous Catheters?Case Rep Oncol Med. 2020 May 9;2020:3738798. doi: 10.1155/2020/3738798. eCollection 2020. Case Rep Oncol Med. 2020. PMID: 32509367 Free PMC article.
-
Does prior percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy alter post-operative outcome after esophagectomy.World J Surg. 2015 Feb;39(2):441-5. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2812-8. World J Surg. 2015. PMID: 25270346
-
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site metastasis from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: case series and literature review.J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013 Feb 28;42(1):20. doi: 10.1186/1916-0216-42-20. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013. PMID: 23672761 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical