Cargando…

The effect of paclitaxel-eluting covered metal stents versus covered metal stents in a rabbit esophageal squamous carcinoma model

BACKGROUND: The use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) is the current treatment of choice for malignant gastrointestinal obstructions. However, these stents can promote only drainage and have no antitumor effect. Some studies have reported that drug-eluting SEMSs may have tumor inhibition pot...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Yin, Ma, Limei, Huang, Jin, Shuang, Jinquan, Chen, Jianping, Fan, Zhining
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5333899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28253360
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173262
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) is the current treatment of choice for malignant gastrointestinal obstructions. However, these stents can promote only drainage and have no antitumor effect. Some studies have reported that drug-eluting SEMSs may have tumor inhibition potential. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency and safety of paclitaxel-eluting SEMSs (PEMSs) in rabbit esophageal cancer models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PEMS was covered with a paclitaxel-incorporated membrane, in which the concentration of paclitaxel was 10% (wt/vol). The rabbit models were created endoscopically. Then, a PEMS or SEMS was endoscopically inserted into the rabbit esophagus. Two weeks after stent placement, the rabbits were sacrificed, and we evaluated the tumor volume, area of the wall defect, area of the tumor under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before and after stent placement, status of the proximal esophageal obstruction, tumor metastasis food-intake and weight loss. RESULTS: A total of 26 rabbits received stent insertion and survived until sacrifice, and migration occurred in 4 cases, 3 in SEMS group and 1 in PEMS group. For the remaining 22 rabbits, at the sacrificed time, the average tumor volume was 7.00±4.30 cm(3) in the SEMS group and 0.94±1.51 cm(3) in the PEMS group (P<0.05). The area of the esophageal wall defect was 0.70±0.63 cm(2) in the SEMS group and 0.17±0.16 cm(2) in the PEMS group (P<0.05). The tumor area under EUS was 4.40±1.47 cm(2) in the SEMS group and 1.30±1.06 cm(2) in the PEMS group (P<0.05). At the time of stent placement, tumor area under EUS was comparable in the two groups. Other indices did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: SEMS and PEMS are both safe and effective to relieve dysphagia in rabbit esophageal cancer models. A PEMS can serve as an alternative tool for advanced esophageal cancer that may inhibit tumor growth by serving as a drug sustained-release platform. Clinical trials of the stent are warranted in the future.