I-125 seed-loaded versus normal stent insertion for obstructive esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Malignant esophageal obstruction is usually caused by esophageal and other chest cancers. More than 80% of cases of obstructive esophageal cancer (OEC) have lost the chance of curative resection. Stent insertion is a first-line palliative approach used to treat incurable OEC. AIM: To gauge the relative clinical efficacy of I-125 seed-loaded stent (ISS) versus normal stent (NS) insertion as a treatment for OEC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Querying of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to find all relevant studies published up to November 2020. The meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan v5.3. RESULTS: We identified 158 studies initially, eight (4 randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective studies) of which were used in this meta-analysis. We found that the two groups exhibited the comparable pooled Δdysphagia scores (MD = 0.02; p = 0.80), stent restenosis rates (OR = 0.97; p = 0.89), stent migration rates (OR = 0.81; p = 0.63), severe chest pain rates (OR = 1.05; p = 0.81), hemorrhage rates (OR = 1.53; p = 0.16), aspiration pneumonia rates (OR = 0.72; p = 0.38), and fistula formation rates (OR = 1.47; p = 0.44). The pooled time-to-restenosis and survival were both significantly longer in the ISS group (p = 0.04 and < 0.0001, respectively). Significant heterogeneity was detected in the endpoints of Δdysphagia scores and survival (I(2) = 73% and 86%, respectively). Funnel plot analysis indicated an absence of publication bias related to the selected study endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with OEC, our meta-analysis indicated that ISS insertion could provide longer stent patency and survival than NS insertion.