Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy before Multimodality Therapy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

  • Marc Margolis
    ,
  • Pendleton Alexander(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Gregory D. Trachiotis
    ,
  • Farid Gharagozloo
    ,
  • Timothy Lipman
    ,
  • Darryl S. Weiman
*Corresponding author for this work
  • George Washington University
    ,
  • Cardiothoracic Surgery
    ,
  • Unknown
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

Background. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has not been widely used in esophageal cancer because of concerns about safety of dilatation, suitability of the stomach as an esophageal replacement, and potential for inoculation metastasis. Methods. Experience with PEG in consecutive patients presenting with new esophageal cancer from March 1991 to March 2001 was reviewed retrospectively. PEG was planned in 119 of 179 (66%) of these patients excluding those presenting moribund and those for whom early resection was planned. The PEG was placed using an endoscopic method with wire-guided endoscopic bougienage or laser ablation or both as needed. Success of placement, requirement for dilatation and ablation, PEG-related complications, tolerance of enteral feeds, and impact on therapy were evaluated. Results. PEG placement was possible in 87% of patients (103 of 119). Dilatation or laser ablation or both was required in 46% (47 of 103). There was no procedure-related mortality. Thirty-day mortality was 13.5%. Major PEG-related complications were observed in 4% (4 of 103) and minor PEG-related complications in 12% (12 of 103). PEG removal was required in 4 patients and interruption of enteral feeds required in 33 (32%). No instances of esophageal disruption or tumor inoculation metastasis were noted. PEG takedown and site closure at the time of operation was uncomplicated and use of the stomach as an esophageal substitute was possible in all 61 resected patients. Rates of anastomotic leak, stricture, and gastric emptying delay were similar to those for patients proceeding to resection without prior PEG (leak: PEG = 8% [5 of 61] versus non-PEG = 10.5% [2 of 19]), (stricture: PEG = 37% [22 of 61] versus non-PEG = 32.5% [6 of 19]), (delay: PEG = 9.8% [6 of 61] versus non-PEG = 10.5% [2 of 19]). Analysis of variables showed PEG to be significantly related to attainment of target doses of chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.034), and survival at 12 months (p = 0.02). Conclusions. PEG in esophageal cancer is safe and useful and does not compromise the stomach or esophagogastric anastomosis. Further study is required to define the efficacy of PEG as a means of nutritional support and its impact on survival.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 1694-1698 (5 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Annals of Thoracic Surgery (Volume 76, Issue 5)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 11/2003

Publication status

Published - 11/2003

ISSN

0003-4975

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 0242552161
  • PubMed: 14602314

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.13
Fractional count
7
Fractional count
0.88
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
94
Captures
51