Survey of the experience of head and neck cancer patients with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.

Abstract

e18501 Background: Many patients with advanced head and neck cancer become unable to obtain enough nutrition and hydration orally, leading to considerable weight loss and compromised clinical outcomes. PEG tube is ideal for this population who require longer term nutrition support because of cancer treatment. The study objective was to learn about the experience of patients with a PEG tube. Methods: A questionnaire was developed, tested, and used to collect data. This survey consisted of 20 questions pertinent to various domains of quality of life and aiming at various aspects of patient life: physical, emotional and social sectors and noting their experiences in the form of multiple-choice options using Likert scale and free text option for suggestions. Results: A total of 22 participants were involved in this study, 64 years,7 males and 5 females. Cancer site: Tongue (10), tonsils (5), pharynx (5) and larynx (2). All patients belonged to stage III or more. Majority were treated with chemoradiotherapy (17 ). Out of 22 patients, 18 had PEG tube placement before starting treatment and the other 4 agreed during the cancer treatment. Most patients had the PEG tube for 3-6 months (8/22 cases). 21 patients strongly agree that PEG tube insertion was useful to them for their treatment and nutrition. 21 patients agreed relying on PEG tube FOR > 75% of their daily nutrition. While 4 patients agreed that PEG hampered their ADLs, 13 patients suggested that only rarely (7 cases) or sometimes (6 cases) they encountered difficulty in managing their ADLs. Only 2 patients had often trouble with sleep.15 cases did not feel any social embarrassment with PEG and did not miss any social events.19 patients answered that they followed oncologists to have PEG tube placement. Majority (15) managed the tube feed on their own. 16 cases never had any clinic/ER visit solely due to PET tube issues. 20 patients considered dietician as the first person to connect for concerns. 8 patients experienced issues like tube site infection (5), leakage (5), bleeding from site (4), tube blockade (5) or tube replacement (2). All patients except one agreed to have PEG placement again in future if required for any medical reason and would recommend others as well. Similarly, all patients except one thought that they would not have completed the cancer treatment without PEG tube support. Conclusions: Results indicate that the patient experience with the PEG tube is generally positive. This study will help improve understanding regarding the experience of living with a PEG tube from the patient perspective.