Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Protocol - Intervention

Colorectal stents for the management of malignant colonic obstructions

This is not the most recent version

Collapse all Expand all

Abstract

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

Our primary objective is to evaluate the clinical success and failure in stent placements and deployment and its associated complications compared with emergency surgery.

Our secondary objective is to evaluate the technical success of colonic stents and their cost effectiveness in comparison with surgery.

Background

Description of the condition

Colorectal cancer is one of the common cancers affecting the western population. It usually affects the older population. Acute colonic obstruction is one of the common clinical presentations of colorectal cancer. In such cases, surgical decompression with colostomy with or without resection and eventual re‐anastomosis is the traditional treatment of choice, however associated morbid conditions due to old age along with emergency surgery increases the chances of morbid complications intra and post operatively.

Description of the intervention

The colonic stent placement to relieve the obstruction has been used since last decade to avoid emergency surgery. The colonic stent insertion effectively decompresses the obstructed colon, allowing the surgery to be performed electively at later stage (Targownik 2004). 80 % of the colonic obstruction are due to malignancy and 10 to 30% of patients with colonic cancer presents with obstruction (Deans 1994;Rault 2005). Colonic stents are used increasingly as a palliation and as a bridge to surgery for obstructing colorectal cancer (Khot 2002). The colonic stents can be deployed either under fluorescence radiology using guidewire or through endoscopy or through the use of both the techniques.

How the intervention might work

Technical and clinical success of the colonic stents varied from 70% to 95%. In a pooled analysis of 1198 colonic stent insertion the median technical and clinical success rates were 94% (i.q.r. 90‐100) and 91% (i.q.r. 84‐94), respectively. The clinical success when used as a bridge to surgery was 71.7% Sebastian 2004. Among the complications, perforation was 4%, stent migration and stent reabsorption were 10% each (Khot 2002). Colonic stenting can be used effectively, with acceptable morbidity, to manage patients presenting with large bowel obstruction (Watson 2005; Syn 2005). Self‐expanding metallic stent placement is a palliative alternative to colostomy for patients with inoperable malignant colonic strictures (Xinopoulos 2004). The colonic stent may provide alternative option to emergency surgery with possible low morbidities and mortality.

Why it is important to do this review

Although systematic review on the efficacy and safety of colorectal stents was performed (Khot 2002) we were unable to identify any systematic review involving randomised controlled trials questioning whether the colonic stents provides an alternative option to surgical intervention for the management of colonic malignant obstruction. We therefore sought to reduce this uncertainty by summarising the available research evidence regarding the colonic stents in the malignant colorectal obstructions in comparison to surgical interventions.

Objectives

Our primary objective is to evaluate the clinical success and failure in stent placements and deployment and its associated complications compared with emergency surgery.

Our secondary objective is to evaluate the technical success of colonic stents and their cost effectiveness in comparison with surgery.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel study design , where the allocation of concealment is adequate or not reported will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Quasi‐randomised trials will be decided for their inclusion or exclusion for this review subject to editorial and peer review decision.

Types of participants

RCTs involving adults (18 years and over) presented clinically with large bowel obstruction secondary to colorectal cancer confirmed radiologically will be included irrespective of race, sex and associated medical conditions undergoing either colonic stent placement or surgical interventions.

Types of interventions

Studies reporting the following comparisons will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies will be included irrespective of the methods used for colonic stent deployment either through endoscope or through fluoroscopic radiology guided or through endoscope and fluoroscopic guided.

  • Colonic stent compared with stoma creation for malignant colonic obstruction as palliative procedure

  • Colonic stent compared with stoma creation for malignant colonic obstruction as a bridge to a definitive surgical procedure

  • One type of colonic stents compared with another type of colonic stent for malignant colonic obstruction

Types of outcome measures

For the purpose of this review, studies which will report the following outcomes will be eligible for the inclusion.

Primary outcomes

Clinical success in the form of relief from colonic obstruction (although defined by authors).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Technical success (defined by authors)

  2. Perforation of bowel

  3. Stend migration

  4. Stent blockage or obstruction

  5. Length of hospital stay

  6. Survival

  7. Patients's pain or discomfort (however measured)

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

We will search the following databases:

  • Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Specialised Register (30/04/2008);

  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); 2008 issue 3

  • Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to May 2008);

  • Ovid EMBASE (1970 to May 2008);

  • Ovid CINAHL (1970 to May 2008).

We will apply a filter to identify RCTs for all databases except the Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register and CENTRAL, using the strategy described in the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins 2008).

The databases used for the literature search will include MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. These are considered the relevant bibliographic databases in this subject area.

The resulting search results will be uploaded in the reference manager file through reference manager version 11.

Searching other resources

We will consider all the relevant studies irrespective of language and publication status for the review. The reference lists in the identified studies will also be searched in order to identify further studies. We will search to identify any ongoing or completed trials.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

The authors will independently assess the titles and abstracts of the identified studies. We will obtain full articles for all studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria and will include all those that meet the inclusion criteria. Any differences in opinion between authors at this stage will be resolved by discussion.

Data extraction and management

The authors will independently extract data for the outcomes listed and will independently assess the methodological quality of each trial, without masking of author names. In addition, we will extract the following data for each study using a custom designed extraction form:

  • Language of publication

  • Country where study conducted

  • Baseline characteristics of participants by group

  • Type of interventions ‐ colonic stent/surgery

  • Type of stents

  • Details of the comparison intervention

  • Co‐interventions (by group)

  • Duration of follow up

  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

We will contact the study authors regarding any unclear or missing information. We will identify any studies that potentially share the same patients, and in such cases, we will contact the authors of the studies to clarify this issue.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Assessment of risk of bias in the trial will be based on guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2008). If information won't be available in the published study, we will contact the authors in order to assess the trials correctly.

The elements of risk of bias assessment will be generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete data outcomes, selective data reporting, and other bias (early stopping, baseline imbalance, source of funding):

(1) Generation of the allocation sequence

  • Adequate (A), if the allocation sequence is generated by a computer or random number table. Drawing of lots, tossing of a coin, shuffling of cards, or throwing dice will be considered as adequate if a person who is not otherwise involved in the recruitment of participants performed the procedure.

  • Unclear (B), if the trial is described as randomised, but the method used for the allocation sequence generation is not described.

  • Inadequate (C), if a system involving dates, names, or admittance numbers is used for the allocation of patients. These studies are known as quasi‐randomised and will be excluded from the review.

(2) Allocation concealment

  • Adequate (A), if the allocation of patients involves a central independent unit, on‐site locked computer, or sealed envelopes.

  • Unclear (B), if the trial is described as randomised, but the method used to conceal the allocation is not described.

  • Inadequate (C), if the allocation sequence is known to the investigators who assign participants or if the study is quasi‐randomised.

(3) Blinding of participant

  • Adequate (A), if the participant is described as blinded and the method of blinding is described.

  • Unclear (B), if the participant is described as blinded, but the method of blinding is not described.

  • Not performed (C), if there is no blinding at all.

(4) Blinding of care‐provider

  • Adequate (A), if the care provider is described as blinded and the method of blinding is described.

  • Unclear (B), if the care provider is described as blinded, but the method of blinding is not described.

  • Not performed (C), if there is no blinding at all.

(5) Blinding of outcome assessor

  • Adequate (A), if the outcome assessor was described as blinded and the method of blinding was described.

  • Unclear (B), if the outcome assessor was described as blinded, but the method of blinding was not described.

  • Not performed (C), if there was no blinding at all.

(6) Incomplete data outcomes

  • Adequate (A), if there are no post‐randomisation drop‐outs or withdrawals or if the post‐randomisation drop‐outs are balanced in both groups or reasons for missing data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for example, patient does not need either surgery or stent due to resolution of bowel obstruction).

  • Unclear (B), if it is not clear whether there are any drop‐outs or withdrawals or if the reasons for these drop‐outs are not clear.

  • Inadequate (C), if the reasons for missing data likely to be related to true outcomes, "as‐treated" analysis is performed, potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation, potential for patients with missing outcomes to induce clinically relevant bias in effect estimate or effect size.

(7) Selective outcome reporting

  • Adequate (A), if all the important outcomes are reported or if the study protocol is available and all of the study’s pre‐specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review are reported in the pre‐specified way.

  • Unclear (B), if there is insufficient information to assess whether the risk of selective outcome reporting is present.

  • Inadequate (C), if not all the pre‐specified outcomes are reported or if the primary outcomes are changed or if some of the important outcomes are incompletely reported.

(8) Other biases

(a) Early stopping

  • Adequate (A), if sample size calculations are reported and the trial is not stopped early by formal or informal stopping rules.

  • Unclear (B), if sample size calculations are not reported and it is not clear whether the trial is not stopped early.

  • Inadequate (C), if the trial is stopped early.

(b) Baseline imbalance

  • Adequate (A), if there is no baseline imbalance in important characteristics.

  • Unclear (B), if the baseline characteristics are not reported.

  • Inadequate (C), if there is a baseline imbalance due to chance or due to imbalanced exclusion after randomisation.

(c) Source of funding

  • Adequate (A), if the trial is unfunded or is not funded by a stent manufacturer.

  • Unclear (B), if the source of funding is not clear.

  • Inadequate (C), if the trial is funded by a stent manufacturer.

Measures of treatment effect

We will use the software package RevMan 5.0 provided by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous variables, we will calculate the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval. For continuous outcomes we plan to enter the mean and standard deviation data into RevMan and calculate the weighted mean difference.

Unit of analysis issues

The unit of allocation is individual participants. We will not consider cluster‐randomised trials for inclusion.

Dealing with missing data

We plan to use an "available case analysis" i.e. whether participants are analysed in the groups to which they are originally randomised (Hollis 1999; Higgins 2008) without imputing any data for the patients for whom the outcomes are not reported. In case, the authors have not report the standard deviation for continuous outcomes (and if we are unable to obtain this information from authors), we plan to impute the standard deviation from standard error, confidence intervals, or p‐values using formulae given in the Cochrane handbook (Higgins 2008). If it is not possible to impute the standard deviation from these measures, we plan to use the maximum standard deviation for the same measure in other trials (Higgins 2008). When medians are reported without the means, we will not include the median as a substitute for mean in the meta‐analysis (see also "Sensitivity analysis") . However, if there are no post‐randomisation drop‐outs or withdrawals from the trials included in this review, we may have to consider this as "intention‐to‐treat analysis".

Assessment of heterogeneity

We will explore heterogeneity using I2 and p‐value from the chi‐squared test.

Assessment of reporting biases

Duplicate publication bias

In case there are any doubts whether a trial has been published twice or more (by identifying common authors, centres, and interventions), we plan to check with the authors whether the trial report has been duplicated.

Location bias

We plan to investigate whether effect estimate varies with the database from which the report is identified (MEDLINE indexed versus MEDLINE not indexed).

Language bias

We plan to investigate whether effect estimate varies with the language in which the article is published (English versus no English). If a trial report has been published in English and other language(s), it would have been considered to be published in English.

Publication bias

We plan to investigate whether effect estimate varies with the publication of the trial report (as full text) or not. We plan to explore bias through a funnel plot of effect estimates and the standard error of the effect estimate Egger 1997 using RevMan 5.0. We plan to use asymmetry in funnel plot of study size against treatment effect to identify this bias. We also intend to perform linear regression approach described by Egger (Egger 1997) to determine the funnel plot asymmetry.

Data synthesis

We will perform the meta‐analyses according to the recommendations of The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2008). We will use the Mantel‐Haenzel's methods to perform the meta‐analysis. We will use a random‐effects model (DerSimonian 1986) and a fixed‐effect model (Demets 1987). In case of discrepancy between the two models we will report both results; otherwise we will report only the results from the fixed‐effect model

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

It we find more than one trial, we will perform subgroup analyses to explore the effects of aspects of trials with adequate, unclear or inadequate risks of bias. We will also perform a subgroup analysis of different varieties of stents. For the subgroup analysis, we intend to use the inverse‐variance method of meta‐analysis and use the chi‐squared test for identifying subgroup differences (Higgins 2008). We also plan to use meta‐regression to investigate heterogeneity using factors such as type of stents and prophylactic antibiotic use (antibiotic used, route, duration) if there are enough trials.

Sensitivity analysis

We intend to perform a sensitivity analysis using medians directly in the meta‐analysis and determine if this changes the results of the meta‐analysis. In case if we find 'zero‐event' trials (i.e., zero event in both groups) in statistically significant outcomes, we plan to perform a sensitivity analysis by adding up to 4 in each arm to numerator and denominator (to obtain a risk rate of 4 per 100) (Higgins 2008).