Self-expanding metal stents for the treatment of malignant colon obstruction from extra-colonic malignancy versus intra-colonic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimsThe relative utility of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant colon obstruction (MCO) due to extra-colonic malignancy (ECM) versus intra-colonic malignancy (ICM) is understudied.MethodsA systematic search was done from inception-April 2021 to identify reports of safety and efficacy of SEMS insertion for the treatment of MCO-ECM versus MCO-ICM. A meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis to compute relative risks (RR), and mean differences (MD) was performed. Subgroup analyses and influence analyses were conducted. The certainty in estimates of effect(s) was assessed using the GRADE approach.ResultsEight non-randomized studies were identified; 46% (39-53%) and 63% (59-67%) of patients in the ECM and ICM groups were male. Most obstructions were in the rectosigmoid colon in both ECM and ICM groups.SEMS insertion in MCO-ECM was associated with an increased risk of technical failure compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.92; 1.13-7.54; Certainty: Very Low). Risk of clinical failure of SEMS was higher in MCO-ECM compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.88; 1.58-2.52; Certainty: Very Low). The risk of clinical failure remained significant throughout the influence analysis, as well as on subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events or luminal perforation with SEMS insertion among patients with MCO-ECM and MCO-ICM. On influence analysis, removal of one study unveiled a significant increase in the risk of luminal perforation in MCO-ECM (RR 3.22; 1.44-7.19; p = 0.004).ConclusionSEMS for MCO-ECM may have a technical success rate comparable to or questionably worse than MCO-ICM, with low certainty in estimate of effects. SEMS deployment in MCO-ECM carries a higher risk of clinical failure, with a questionably higher risk of luminal perforation.