Skip to main content

Does Octreotide Work for Malignant Bowel Obstruction?

by: Colin Scibetta, MD (@colinscibetta)

Malignant bowel obstructions are a known complication of advanced cancer, especially in ovarian and gastrointestinal, and a frequent reason for admission to the hospital. Somatostatin analogues (such as octreotide) reduce gastric secretions and intestinal activity and there is some evidence for their use in improving symptoms of malignant bowel obstructions.

A randomized control trial published last year out of Australia[1] sought to understand the benefit, if any, of adding IV octreotide to a standardized regimen of steroids and histamine blockers.

A little about the Study

This was a double blind, placebo controlled randomized trial of patients with nausea and vomiting from a confirmed malignant bowel obstruction. Patients were enrolled at multiple sites by providers from different specialties (ER, general medicine, oncology and palliative care) after the diagnosis was confirmed and assuming they did not meet criteria for immediate surgery or chemotherapy. Patients were randomized into Standard Therapy (placebo + IV dexamethasone, Ranitidine, IV hydration) or Octreotide groups (standard therapy + octreotide 600mcg infused over 24 hours). They included patients older than 18 years with advanced cancer, presenting with vomiting from malignant bowel obstruction between August 2008 and May 2012.

They excluded patients who had immediate indication for surgery or cancer directed therapy after consultation with the patient’s oncologist. Additional exclusion criteria included severe renal impairment, cirrhosis, existing venting G or J tube, a previous adverse reaction to any of the study drugs, and an Australian-modified Karnofsky performance score of less than 30.

The authors looked at a lot of different outcomes. The primary outcome was the number of days free of vomiting as reported by patients at 72 hours. They also looked at a host of secondary outcomes, including a patient-rated Global Impression of Change (GIC) scale, number of patient-reported episodes of vomiting per day, survival, nausea, brief pain inventory, functional status, PRN medication use (as dictated by the study protocol), and treatment failure. Treatment failure was defined as persistent vomiting, insertion of NG or venting G tube, or surgery.

The PRN medication protocol included hyoscine butylbromide (an anti-spasmodic medication) for colicky pain, opioids for non-colicky pain, and haloperidol or metoclopramide for nausea and vomiting.

Did Octreotide work for malignant bowel obstruction, as measured by the primary outcome?

No. There was no difference in mean number of days free of vomiting between the octreotide (1.87 days) and Standard Therapy group (1.69), with p-value of 0.47. In fact, patients in both groups demonstrated a significant drop in number of episodes of vomiting between day 0 and day 1.

There were also no differences detected in patients reported Global Impression of Change scores, presence or intensity of nausea, pain scores, or survival. Patients in the octreotide group were more likely to be administered hyoscine butylbromide for colicky abdominal pain (p=0.004). The study was not powered to detect differences in secondary outcomes.

Of note, the authors comment in the results section of the paper that after an adjusted multivariable regression analysis of secondary outcomes, they found a statistically significant reduction in the number of episodes of vomiting in patients treated with octreotide (RR=0.40, p=0.019). Interestingly, this was not mentioned in the discussion section and did not appear to influence the authors conclusions.

Key things to consider when interpreting this study

It is worth mentioning that the dose of octreotide used in this study was higher than that in previous studies (600 mcg/24 hours), and the authors do not address this. In addition, the standard regimen of IV ranitidine and dexamethasone used in both the control and treatment arms of the study is far from universal, and in fact varies widely across clinical practices. Importantly, patients in both arms of this trial reported marked improvements in symptoms and overall GIC score over the course of 3 days -- in particular between days 0 and 1. This change was statistically significant, and highlights that patients in both arms tended to improve, regardless of whether they received octreotide. Whether this reflects the natural history of malignant bowel obstructions in this population or the efficacy of the "standardized" medical therapies given to both groups is not clear.

Additionally, this study does not tell us about the potential benefit of octreotide therapy beyond a 72 hour window. Questions about the benefit of longer term dosing of octreotide in patients with recurrent or non-resolving malignant bowel obstructions are not addressed by this study.

What’s the take home point?

Ultimately, the results of this well designed and rigorously implemented randomized control trial do NOT support the use of IV octreotide in the acute management of malignant bowel obstruction. Not only did octreotide fail to demonstrate a reduction in vomiting over a 72 hour period (primary outcome), there was no meaningful difference in any of the secondary outcomes – such as pain, episodes of vomiting, or nausea.

The lack of demonstrated benefit is important because octreotide is a costly medication that requires either continuous, frequent subcutaneous or IV dosing, or long-acting depot formulations that may take several weeks to reach therapeutic levels. Furthermore, the observed increased use of anti-spasmodics in the treatment group raises the possibility that octreotide may even contribute to abdominal discomfort in these patients.

[1] Currow DC, Quinn S, Agar M, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of octreotide in malignant bowel obstruction. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2014.09.013. [Epub ahead of print]


Michael said…
Except for the fact that it works dramatically in well selected cases in my practice. I can't explain the study when its use in a regimen with steroids, haloperidol, hyoscamine, and odtreotide works in practice. I use them in a very individualized and nuanced fashion, but I guess I could be under a delusion.


Michael Fratkin,MD
Holly Yang, MD said…
I use octreotide in complete malignant bowel obstructions and in cases of trapped loops of bowel that are non-operable for clinical or goals of care reasons. The decrease in NGT output and/or vomiting and abdominal pain is very clear and dose-related in my experience. I would be very cautious about saying that octreotide has no role in complete bowel obstructions, as I believe strongly that it does. Prematurely concluding that this drug has no role is incorrect and may preclude patients from getting the appropriate treatment in this challenging and much-feared condition.

For partial bowel obstruction, steroids can help peritumoral inflammation and may allow the obstruction to resolve without octreotide. Antiemetics can help with the nausea and vomiting in various ways depending on their pharmacology. At times, complete obstructions can become partial obstructions with steroids and antiemetics and trials of bowel rest and/or NG suction and/or octreotide.

This study did not delineate how many of these patients had complete obstructions, whether the partial or complete obstructions resolved, or even if partial obstructions progressed to complete. If nausea/vomiting resolved after 3 days, especially in small bowel obstructions, I can only assume that the obstruction resolved as well, as the GI fluid output otherwise has no place to go and the vomiting would continue.

I respectfully disagree with your take home point that octreotide has no role in malignant bowel obstruction. The study's conclusions are incomplete and will not change my practice as they did not differentiate between partial and complete bowel obstruction, did not indicate whether the obstructions improved/resolved, and they did not titrate the octreotide according to symptom burden to achieve palliation as we should do with all medications in clinical practice.
mehak kashish said…
interesting piece of information, I had come to know about your web-page from my friend pramod, jaipur,i have read atleast eight posts of yours by now, and let me tell you, your blog gives the best and the most interesting information. This is just the kind of information that i had been looking for, i'm already your rss reader now and i would regularly watch out for the new posts, once again hats off to you! Thanks a million once again, Regards, obiee training in hyderabad

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Opening the Black Box of LTACs: Podcast with Anil Makam

What happens in Long Term Acute Care Hospitals, or LTACs (pronounced L-tacs)?  I've never been in one.  I've sent patients to them - usually patients with long ICU stays, chronically critically ill, with a gastric feeding tube and a trach for ventilator support.  For those patients, the goals (usually as articulated by the family) are based on a hope for recovery of function and a return home.

And yet we learn some surprising things from Anil Makam, Assistant Professor of Medicine at UCSF.  In his JAGS study of about 14,000 patients admitted to LTACHs, the average patient spent two thirds of his or her remaining life in an institutional settings (including hospitals, LTACs and skilled nursing facilities).  One third died in an LTAC, never returning home.

So you would think with this population of older people with serious illness and a shorter prognosis than many cancers, we would have robust geriatrics and palliative care in LTACs?  Right? Wrong.

3% were seen by a geriatrici…

Length of Stay in Nursing Homes at the End of Life

One out of every four of us will die while residing in a nursing home. For most of us, that stay in a nursing home will be brief, although this may depend upon social and demographic variables like our gender, net worth, and marital status. These are the conclusions of an important new study published in JAGS by Kelly and colleagues (many of whom are geripal contributors, including Alex Smith and Ken Covinsky).

The study authors used data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to describe the lengths of stay of older adults who resided in nursing homes at the end of life. What they found was that out of the 8,433 study participants who died between 1992 and 2006, 27.3% of resided in a nursing home prior to their death. Most of these patients (70%) actually died in the nursing home without being transferred to another setting like a hospital.

 The length of stay data were striking:

the median length of stay in a nursing home before death was 5 months the average length of stay was l…