Background: Dysphagia is a common life-impacting complication for patients with gastro-oesophageal (O-G) cancer. Options to alleviate dysphagia include insertion of SEMS or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). SEMS improve quality of life by enabling a person to eat a varied diet, but are associated with complications including pain and need for reintervention. Although studies have shown SEMS improve dysphagia, consequent longitudinal impact on nutritional status has not been evaluated. There is a need to better characterise risks and benefits of SEMS to allow a personalised approach to both insertion and follow-up. Methods: We identified patients with a confirmed diagnosis of O-G cancer, who underwent SEMS insertion at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2021 and 2022. Data was retrospectively collected about patient and stent characteristics, and patient outcomes to quantify benefits and risks of SEMS. Results: 112 patients had 127 SEMS inserted at The Christie. Patients’ International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) score significantly improved after SEMS insertion (N=120); prior to SEMS 62% were only managing liquids and purees (IDDSI 3 and 4) and 24% were not able to eat enterally. Post SEMS, 76% tolerated textured foods (IDDSI 5 and above) and only 21.5% were limited to liquids/purees. We observed a significant reduction in the rate of weight loss (% body weight/10 days) following SEMS insertion (-0.010 ± 0.009 vs. -0.001 ± 0.010, P < 0.001). 12% of patients experienced grade 3 SEMS-related toxicity or stent failure within 30 days, and 20% developed significant pain within 24 hours of SEMS insertion. Conclusions: SEMS provide meaningful nutritional benefit in the majority of patients with O-G cancer, as weight loss is significantly slowed following insertion. However, we identified two groups of patients who did not benefit from SEMS; those who continued to lose weight and those who had stent failure. We did not find predictive factors for stent failure from multivariate analysis of baseline demographics or stent characteristics. Therefore, more detailed analysis of tumour factors, imaging findings and SEMS location from a larger cohort of patients may be required to identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from SEMS, and alternative interventions such as PEG feeding could be considered.