Abstract
Nasogastric tube (NGT) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy were frequently used in the head and neck cancer patients when malnutrition was present. Nevertheless, the evidence was inclusive in terms of the choice and the time of tube placement. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate the comparative effects of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pPEG), reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (rPEG), and NGT in the head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and Elsevier were searched from inception to October 2015. Thirteen studies enrolling 1,631 participants were included in this network meta-analysis. The results indicated that both pPEG and NGT were superior to rPEG in the management of weight loss. pPEG was associated with the least rate of treatment interruption and nutrition-related hospital admission among pPEG, rPEG, and NGT. Meanwhile, there was no difference in tube-related complications. Our study suggested that pPEG might be a better choice in malnutrition management in the head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. However, its effects need to be further investigated in more randomized controlled trials.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
