Our patient’s case showed progression of stenosis of the gastric body and antrum along with disease progression during first-line chemotherapy. Prompt amelioration of symptoms and improvement of her general condition were needed because our patient had developed weight loss and poor nutritional status due to inadequate oral uptake. There are several therapeutic options to facilitate oral uptake for patients with stenosis of the upper gastrointestinal tract, including chemotherapy, bypass surgery, and stent placement [
5,
6]. Insertion of a nasogastric tube and gastrostomy enable only symptom relief by reducing pressure in the gastrointestinal tract [
2,
3]. Although it has been estimated that SLC induces tumor response in 20% of cases, it might not permit immediate symptom relief [
7‐
9]. In our patient’s case, bypass surgery was not possible because the infiltrating carcinomatous cells were distributed across a wide area of the stomach. We then considered stent placement in the upper gastrointestinal tract. A previous report proposed the indications and contraindications of SEMS for gastrointestinal tract stenosis [
4]. The indications were inoperable malignant gastro-duodenal outlet obstruction, extrinsic compression by neoplastic or nodal disease, anastomotic tumor recurrence after surgery, malignant fistula to adjacent organs, benign strictures refractory to balloon dilatation, and patients not being amenable to surgery. The contraindications were curable disease by multimodality treatment, uncorrectable coagulopathy, terminally ill patients with limited life expectancy, peritoneal carcinomatosis with distal small bowel obstruction, free gastrointestinal perforation, bowel ischemia, and sepsis. However, favorable sites for stenoses in the upper gastrointestinal tract for SEMS were not well defined, and there have been few reports of SEMS placement for wide stenotic lesions of the gastric body and antrum because SEMS had not been thought suitable for such cases [
10,
11]. Our patient had stenosis of the gastric body and antrum, and SEMS placement was thought appropriate because the length of the stenotic region was 8 to 10cm (a length for which the device might be suitable), the pyloric ring was intact, and some space on the oral side of the stenotic region was available. Finally, stent placement was successfully performed, oral uptake recovered immediately, and our patient’s nutritional status also improved. Stent placement in the upper gastrointestinal tract could be appropriate even for patients with poor performance status and multiple complications because it is less invasive, has a good success rate, and provides rapid symptom relief. Meanwhile, adverse events, including bleeding in less than 1%, pain in 2.5%, perforation in <1%, biliary obstruction in 1.3%, and tumor ingrowth of the stent in 17% to 50%, have been reported [
4]. Stent migration also occurred in 0% to 5% with a bare-metal stent (BMS) and in 21% to 26% with a covered stent [
4]. Since various complications induced by stent placement often occur in the thoracic upper esophagus within 2cm of the esophageal entrance, esophago-gastric junction, pylorus ring, and ampulla of Vater, the location of stent placement requires careful consideration. Although our patient had stenosis of both the gastric body and the EGJ, with disease progression during first-line chemotherapy, stent placement was used only for the gastric body stenosis, not for the EGJ stenosis. The stenosis of the EGJ was mild and an endoscope could easily pass through the EGJ at that time. In addition, the longest length of WallFlex® Duodenal Stent does not have enough length to cover the distance from the lower esophagus to pre-pylorus. Moreover, stent placement at the EGJ was associated with a risk of stent migration or persistent pain, vomiting and esophagitis due to gastroesophageal reflux, because of expansion of a physically narrowing region. As mentioned above, complications related to stent placement in the EGJ, including dropout of the stent, gastroesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia, have often been reported [
12,
13]. Recently, an anti-reflux stent that is expected to prevent such complications, has been developed, and its practical effectiveness has been verified [
14].
In our patient’s case, stent placement in the gastric body was an effective and durable treatment for the stenosis. Stent placement for stenosis of the esophagus and duodenum has been well documented, but few reports of stenting for gastric body stenosis were found. This might be because carcinomatous stenosis tends to appear in a wide area of the stomach involved with scirrhous type carcinomas. Severe stenosis localized to the gastric body or antrum could be a candidate for this intervention. Selecting appropriate cases and technical improvements could provide greater clinical benefit.
Since the survival benefit of SLC for metastatic gastric carcinoma (MGC) has been proven, it is often considered after failure of the prior chemotherapy [
7,
8,
15]. In recent years, a phase III study showed that SLC with CPT-11 (Camptothecin-11 or Irinotecan) or docetaxel for MGC significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) alone (5.1 months for SLC versus 3.8 months for BSC) [
15]. SLC with weekly paclitaxel has also been used based on a 16% to 24% tumor response, and overall survival ranged from 3.5 to 8.0 months in several phase II studies [
7,
8]. In addition, the toxicity of the weekly paclitaxel regimen was generally feasible for patients with MGC, even with moderate carcinomatous ascites [
8]. A phase III study comparing bi-weekly CPT-11 (Camptothecin-11 or Irinotecan) and weekly paclitaxel as SLC for MGC has also been conducted in Japan. In our patient’s case, SLC with paclitaxel was safely performed, and it inhibited stenosis of the cardia and re-stenosis of the gastric body and antrum after stent placement, so that long-term oral uptake was achieved. Survival was longer than that reported in the previous report [
15]. No mechanical and symptomatic problems were found related to the stent placed in the gastric body and antrum. Severe stenosis of the gastrointestinal tract and fistula formation were often observed in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer. These diseases decrease oral uptake and performance status and induce infections such as pneumonia and abscesses. In these cases, it is often difficult to administer anti-cancer agents because of the patients’ poor general condition or the risk of exacerbating infections. However, immediate interventions, such as bypass surgery and stent placement, might make it possible not only to ameliorate symptoms, but also to provide a chance for systemic chemotherapy, resulting in comparative prolongation of survival.