Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Research Articles

Utility of Prophylactic Percutaneous Gastrostomy in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Multicenter Analysis.

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) have an elevated incidence of cachexia and malnutrition due to the tumor's location interfering with oral feeding. Concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) can have an emetic effect and cause dysphagia and oral mucositis. Adequate nutrition improves immunity, raises the response to therapy, reduces adverse effects, and improves survival. Numerous studies have suggested the utility of nutritional support from percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in HNC patients. Although PEG is usually considered a safe procedure, it has a mortality rate of 0-2.2% and a risk of other procedure-related complications of 17-40%. Our work intends to evaluate the utility of PEG in patients with locally advanced HNC who underwent CCRT. We performed a cohort study at three institutions. We included patients with HNC who underwent definitive CCRT treatment from January 2013 to December 2022.The study consisted of an observational, descriptive, retrospective analysis of prespecified clinical data. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the data between the PEG group and the non-PEG group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used forcovariance analysis. Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportional data and Student's t-test was used to assess the differences in continuous data. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. P-values of<0.05 were considered to be indicative of statistical significance. The SPSS Statisticsversion 28.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) was used to perform all statistical evaluations. We identified 90 eligible patients diagnosed with local advanced HNC who had received definitive CCRT with three weekly cycles of cisplatin as follows: 44 with a prophylactic PEG tube and 46 without a prophylactic PEG tube. Most patients were male (84.4%) and 50% of patients were diagnosed with stage IVa HNC at the time of diagnosis. There wasn't an effect of PEG placement on BMI at the end of CCRT after controlling for the effect ofbaseline BMI (F {1.84}=0.065 {p=0.799}).In the study population, BMI was significantly lower after CCRT (21.30 kg/m2 vs. 23.97 kg/m2), t (86)=12.389, p<0.001. In the subgroup with baseline BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (15 patients), 90% of patients with prophylactic PEG were able to complete the three planned cycles of chemotherapy vs. 66.7% in the non-PEG group. Ten patients in the PEG group (22.7%) referredfeeding tube dependency. Patients with dysphagia were 3.2 times more likely to have placed prophylactic PEG (p=0.007). The difference in overall survivaland progression-free survivalbetween the two groups was not statistically significant (p=0.57 and p=0.497, respectively). In this study using real-world data, we found a potentially protective effect of PEG in underweight patients with locally advanced HNC performing CCRT in order to complete three cycles of treatment.

Routine Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Head and Neck Cancers with Bilateral Neck Irradiation: A Regional Cancer Experience in New Zealand.

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are particularly susceptible to dysphagia and malnutrition. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement is a method used to manage these issues, but practices vary among institutions. At Midcentral District Health Board, patients receiving radiotherapy to the primary and bilateral neck regions routinely undergo prophylactic PEG placement. This study aimed to review the nutritional and PEG-related outcomes of these patients. Records of 49 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Their demographics, tumour and treatment characteristics were recorded. We evaluated patient weight loss, non-elective hospitalisation, treatment interruption rates, PEG-related complications, usage, dependency rates and late dysphagia rates. Oropharyngeal cancers were the most common primary site (61.2%), and 83.7% of patients received primary chemoradiotherapy. Mean weight loss at treatment completion was 5.6% ± 4.3 (4.6 kg ± 3.9). The rate of non-elective hospitalisations was 26.5%, and only 2% of patients had treatment interruptions. Peristomal infection was the most frequent PEG complication (20.4%). No PEG-related mortality was reported. Median duration of PEG dependency was 97 days (14-388 days). Two patients remained permanently dependent at 3 years due to grade 3 dysphagia, and six patients experienced grade ≥2 late dysphagia. Our study showed that prophylactic PEG tube placement was relatively safe, with a high utilisation rate and low long-term dependence on PEG tubes after treatment completion. However, complications related to their use should be addressed through a multidisciplinary approach, with careful assessment by clinicians. The weight loss and hospitalisation rates observed were consistent with earlier studies that utilised prophylactic PEG tubes.

Utility of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in head and neck cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation: A prospective observational cohort

PurposeThe necessity of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PPEG) before concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients remains uncertain. We evaluated the utilization rate of PPEG tube. Weight changes and tube dependence were also assessed. Materials and methodsThis prospective cohort study evaluated the utilization rate of PPEG tube in patients with newly diagnosed HNC undergoing CCRT. Baseline characteristics, nutrition status, and weight loss data were collected and compared between use and non-use groups. Results110 patients (94.8%) used PPEG tube (70 fully-used and 40 partially-used groups). Non-users had a tendency to lose weight more than partially and fully-used groups; 9.13%, 3.42%, and 1.95%, respectively (p = 0.085). Fully-used group had significantly longer time of tube dependence than partially-used group, 7.0 months versus 4.9 months (p = 0.012). The type of PPEG tube use (full use or partial use) and presence of dysphagia were significantly related to tube dependence. The time ratio of tube dependence for partially-used patients versus fully-used patients was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.68–0.99) (p = 0.039). The time ratio for patients with symptoms of dysphagia was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02–1.63) (p = 0.032). At the end of CCRT, 96.6% of patients agreed that PPEG tube was necessary. ConclusionWe recommend PPEG for patients undergoing CCRT. Partial use of PPEG with continuous oral intake as tolerated is strongly encouraged to maintain weight, and to reduce risk of tube dependence. Future study to evaluate effective swallowing exercise is warranted.

Predictors of the need for prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy

We investigated whether prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is used effectively for patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and the predictors of the need for PEG. 326 patients with laryngeal, oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancers were retrospectively reviewed. The PEG tube use group had more favorable results than the total parenteral nutrition and nasogastric tube groups in terms of rate of serum albumin loss, incidence of severe fever and aspiration pneumonia, CCRT completion rate and hospitalization period. However, it was inferior to oral intake. Analysis of the relative risk of requiring enteral or parenteral nutrition revealed that performance status (PS) 2, primary site (supraglottis, oropharynx, or hypopharynx), N3 disease, and cisplatin were predictors of the need for nutritional support. Prophylactic PEG is effective for patients treated with definitive CCRT and is especially required for patients with PS2 or oropharyngeal cancer.

Unplanned hospitalizations in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer treated with (chemo)radiotherapy with and without prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BackgroundCurrent studies about percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement report equivalent patient outcomes with prophylactic PEG tubes (pPEGs) versus common nutritional support. Unreported was if omitting a pPEG is associated with an increased risk of complications leading to a treatment-related unplanned hospitalization (TRUH).MethodsTRUHs were retrospectively analyzed in patients with advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (n = 310) undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy with (pPEG) or without PEG (nPEG).ResultsIn 88 patients (28%), TRUH was reported. One of the leading causes of TRUH in nPEG patients was inadequate oral intake (n = 16, 13%), and in pPEG patients, complications after PEG tube insertion (n = 12, 10%). Risk factors for TRUH were poor performance status, tobacco use, and surgical procedures.ConclusionsOmitting pPEG tube placement without increasing the risk of an unplanned hospitalization due to dysphagia, dehydration or malnutrition, is an option in patients being carefully monitored. Patients aged > 60 years with hypopharyngeal carcinoma, tobacco consumption, and poor performance status appear at risk of PEG tube-related complications leading to an unplanned hospitalization.

Gastrostomy dependency trends over 15 years of patients at a large tertiary referral center following the insertion of a prophylactic gastrostomy for chemoradiation for mucosal head and neck cancer.

The routine use of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes for nutrition support during radical chemoradiation for head and neck cancer has been suggested to result in PEG dependency. This research aimed to determine the rates of gastrostomy dependency at the Calvary Mater Newcastle (CMN) where PEGs are routinely used and to identify potentially modifiable risk factors. All patients with head and neck cancer planned for curative chemoradiation with a prophylactic PEG inserted were included in this review. Medical records of 250 patients treated between 2000 and 2015 were examined. Overall, eight patients (3%) were unable to wean. At 12 months following treatment, 16 patients (6%) still required PEG tubes for feeding. A greater T extent (T4 or synchronous head and neck tumors) and number of days Nil By Mouth (NBM) remained as significant independent risk factors for PEG dependency at 12 months (Textent OR 6.96 P<.001; NBM OR 1.01 P=.004) and overall (Textent OR8.04 P=.02; NBM OR1.01 P=.001). Associations with NBM were investigated, which demonstrated that patients had less NBM days with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (β-13.3, P=.007) and seeing a speech pathologist during treatment (β-11.9, P=.026). More NBM days were associated with tumors with greater T extent (β+22; P<.001). The routine use of prophylactic PEGs has not resulted in significant rates of PEG dependency at the CMN. Seeing a speech pathologist during treatment and IMRT may decrease time NBM, which was identified as a potentially modifiable risk factor for PEG dependency.

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with head and neck cancer: Influence on nutritional status, utilisation rate and complications.

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are at high risk for malnutrition because of tumour localisation and therapy. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is common practice to prevent malnutrition. To investigate the benefits of prophylactic PEG tube placement for HNC patients in terms of the influence on patients' nutritional status, utilisation rate, complications and to identify the predictors of PEG tube utilisation. All consecutive HNC patients who underwent prophylactic PEG tube insertion between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012 prior to therapy were enrolled. The PEG tube utilisation rate, complications, the patients' nutritional status and tumour therapy were evaluated with the help of electronic patient charts and telephone interviews. A total of 181 patients (48 female, median 67.5years) were included. The PEG utilisation rate in the entire cohort was 91.7%. One hundred and forty-nine patients (82.3%) used the PEG tube for total enteral nutrition, 17 patients (9.4%) for supplemental nutrition and 15 patients (8.3%) made no use of the PEG tube. Peristomal wound infections were the most common complications (40.3%) in this study. A high Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score prior to tube insertion was found to be independently associated with PEG utilisation. No significant weight changes were observed across the three patient subgroups. The overall PEG tube utilisation rate was high in this study. However, given the high rate of infections, diligent patient selection is crucial in order to determine which patients benefit most from prophylactic PEG tube insertion.

Timing of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement as supportive care in HNSCC patients (Pts) receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

e17571 Background: Concurrent CRT with curative intent is the standard of care treatment for Pts with locally advanced or local recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The CRT is associated with significant toxicities including nausea/vomiting, dysphagia and/or odynophagia, which prevent Pts from tolerating oral hydration and nutrition intakes. Treatment frequently leads to weight loss, renal injury and unexpected emergent care or hospitalizations along with therapy interruptions. This study is to determine the timing of PEG tube placement and its impact on the safety and tolerability from HNSCC patients receiving CRT. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 413 electronic medical records (EMR), of which 335 of HNSCC Pts who had complete EMR during CRT period were included in this study. 127 of these 335 Pts (38%) required no PEG tube placement, 208 (62%) required PEG placement. The timing of PEG placement has been observed as two groups: 1) 109 Pts had PEG tube placement before initiation of CRT (Prophylactic Group PG); 2) 89 Pts had PEG tube during CRT period in reaction to a serious toxicity event (Reactive Group_RG). Logistic regressions were used to estimate the effect of PEG timing on Emergency Department (ED) visits, hospitalization, and experiencing treatment interruptions. Results: Our study showed that patients in PG demonstrated 43% less likely on their visiting ED or 42% less likely for hospitalization than Pts of RG with an odds ratio (OR) at 0.396 (95% CI: 0.165~0.952, p = 0.038) for PG over RG from toxicity-related therapy interruptions. Pts in PG also showed an OR at 0.40 from improving hypoalbuminemia over RG Pts (95% CI: 0.16~0.64, p = 0.001) which associated with 23% of chance of maintaining pre-CRT body mass index (BMI) for Pts in PG over those in RG. Conclusions: We observed the prophylactic PEG tube placement prevented unexpected ER visits and hospitalizations through reducing the risk of malnutrition and dehydration, which improved Pts in PG through the CRT with less therapy interruptions and preserved BMI, especially for those Pts of older age, pre-therapy dysphagia, hypoalbuminemia and receiving cisplatin in CRT.

Effect of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube on swallowing in advanced head and neck cancer: A randomized controlled study

Dysphagia is common in head and neck cancer. A percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube is used to facilitate nutrition; however, some retrospective studies have indicated that the PEG tube causes dysphagia. A randomized study of patients with head and neck cancer was conducted with up to 10 years of follow-up. Patients were randomized to either the prophylactic PEG tube group (study group) or the common clinical nutritional support group (control group). At each follow-up, a dietician assessed the oral intake, noted the patients' weight, and if the patients used a PEG tube. Dysphagia was also assessed by the quality of life questionnaire, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 Head and Neck 35-questions (EORTC-QLQ-H&N35). One hundred thirty-four patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in swallowing function between the groups after 12 months, 24 months, and 8 years based on the EORTC-QLQ-H&N35, the oral intake scale, tube dependence, esophageal intervention, weight, body mass index (BMI), and overall survival. A prophylactic PEG tube can be used without an increased risk of long-term dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 908-915, 2017.

Impact of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement on treatment tolerance in head and neck cancer patients treated with cetuximab plus radiation

We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus radiation with or without prophylacticpercutaneous endoscopic gastrectomy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck patients who were not suitable to receive platinum. We reviewed the case records of 27 locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck patients treated with cetuximab plus radiation (RT) between January 2013 and July 2014. No patient was able to receive platinum because of renal dysfunction or other contraindications. Patients received an initial dose of cetuximab of 400 mg/m(2), followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m(2). The total dose of radiotherapy was 66-70 Gy in five daily fractions of 2-2.12 Gy per week. The incidence of leukopenia was significantly higher in patients without percutaneous endoscopic gastrectomy placement than in those with (67.5% vs. 7%, P =0.002). The incidence ofGrade 3 or 4 mucositis tended to be higher in patients without percutaneous endoscopic gastrectomy placement than in those with (83% vs. 47%, P =0.058). Five of twelve patients without percutaneous endoscopic gastrectomy placement required interruption of treatment. More patients without percutaneous endoscopic gastrectomy placement had significantly >10% weight loss than patients with (75% vs. 27%, P =0.013). The overall response rate was 56% in all patients. The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 30.6% in all patients. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrectomy-feeding tube placement could reduce the incidence of severe toxicities, including mucositis and weight loss, and avoid RT interruption. These results require confirmation in a larger study.

The effect of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement on swallowing and swallow-related outcomes in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

Patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) often experience malnutrition and dehydration during treatment. As a result, some centres place PEG tubes prophylactically (pPEG) to prevent these negative consequences. However, recent research has suggested that pPEG use may negatively affect swallowing physiology, function and/or quality of life, especially in the long term. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on pPEG use in HNC patients undergoing radiotherapy and to determine its impact on swallowing-related outcomes. The following electronic databases were searched for all relevant primary research published through February 24, 2014: AMED, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Healthstar, Medline, and PsycINFO. Main search terms included HNC, radiotherapy, deglutition disorders, feeding tube(s), and prophylactic or elective. References for all accepted papers were hand searched to identify additional relevant research. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias. At all levels, two blinded raters provided judgments. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The search retrieved 181 unique citations. Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Quality assessment revealed that all studies were at risk for bias due to non-randomized sampling and unreported or inadequate blinding. Ten studies demonstrated selection bias with significant baseline differences between pPEG patients and controls. Results regarding the frequency and severity of dysphagia and swallowing-related outcomes were varied and inconclusive. The impact of pPEG use on swallowing and swallowing-related outcomes remains unclear. Well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine if pPEG places patients at greater risk for developing long-term dysphagia.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement by otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons

Conclusion: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement by an otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeon is a feasible procedure with logistical advantages for the patient. Patient selection, co-morbidities, and the prognosis of the underlying disease are factors determining the outcome. Patient evaluation by a multidisciplinary team, with a gastroenterologist surgeon as a technical adviser, is proposed. Objective: PEG tube placement offers an alternative to enteral nutrition. We aimed to analyze complication rates after PEG tube placement in order to evaluate the changed management policy. Methods: This was a retrospective review of complication rates in two patient cohorts with consecutive PEG tube placement at the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (group I, n = 120) and Surgery (group II, n = 172) at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. Data were collected on the patients' age, sex, preoperative condition, tumor site and stage, preoperative laboratory parameters, coexisting medical diagnoses, indication and date for PEG tube placement, complications, time of PEG use, follow-up time, and clinical status at the last follow-up. Results: The only baseline differences between the cohorts were a higher ASA classification and fewer prophylactic PEG tubes in group II. The rate of major complications was 7.5% in group I and 13.9% in group II; in group I the rate of minor complications was 25%, compared with 15% in group II; and the procedure-related mortality rate was 0.8% in group I and 0.5% in group II. The differences were not significant (p = 0.105–0.795).

Prophylactic versus Reactive PEG Tube Placement in Head and Neck Cancer

To understand the impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement timing on tube duration, weight loss, and disease control in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). A tertiary academic center. Historical cohort study. Seventy-four patients with HNC were reviewed. Patients underwent cisplatinum-based chemoradiation therapy with or without surgical resection. They received a PEG tube either before radiation therapy began (prophylactic) or after (reactive). Patients were matched on the basis of age, gender, TNM stage, tumor subsite, human papillomavirus (HPV) status, and chemoradiation dose. Patients receiving reactive PEG tubes had them in place for fewer days than those placed prophylactically (227 vs 139 days, P < .01). There was no difference in percentage weight loss at 2, 6, or 12 months. There was no difference in survival or disease control between the groups. Reactive PEG tube placement may afford patients a shorter duration of usage without incurring greater weight loss or poorer oncologic outcomes.

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients: results of tertiary institute

To evaluate the use and complications of a prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and cancer patients in our institute. A retrospective study of 194 consecutive patients with a newly diagnosed upper aero digestive tract malignancy who underwent mainly prophylactic PEG tube placement. The procedure is relatively safe: 15 (7.7%) of the complications were considered serious; no deaths occurred. Of the patients 23 (12.5%) did not use the PEG tube at all, but it was not possible to single out a group of patients in which this could be predicted. The majority of the patients were considered to benefit from the prophylactic PEG insertion.

AOSP23 CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER PATIENTS AMONG DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Introduction. Locally advanced head and neck cancers are treated with concurrent chemoradiation. Due to combined modality treatment, the severity of acute side-effects results in poor oral intake leading to malnutrition and dehydration. We present our experience with prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube before starting chemoradiation for head and neck cancers. Methods. Between January 2008 and December 2008, we analysed 59 patients (78% male, 22% female) with locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with concurrent chemoradiation and placed gastrostomy tubes prior to the start of treatment. Median age was 50 years (range 18−76). Sites were oral cavity (37%), nasopharynx (31%), larynx (24%), hypopharynx (5%), and others (3%). 26% were AJCC stage I/II, 13% stage III, and 61% stage IV. Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine was given in 71% of patients. Surgery was performed in 10% of patients. All patients received concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin with median dose of radiotherapy 70Gy at 2Gy or 2.75Gy per fraction (range 55−70).A PEG tubewas inserted before the start of concurrent chemoradiation.Weight was monitored at start and end of the therapy. All patients were followed up weekly during the course of chemoradiation for any complications. Results. The average duration of PEG insertion was 155 days. Mean weight of the patients before treatment and end of chemoradiation was 63.5 kg and 60kg, respectively, with average weight loss of about 3.5 kg. Complications included peri-PEG leakage in 12%of patients, intermittent tube blockage in 5%, and mild to moderate pain especially in the first week of tube insertion in 17%, while wound infection occurred in only 2% of patients. Discussion. PEG tube insertion before the start of concurrent chemoradiation is beneficial in head and neck cancer patients with limited complications. Funding. None declared. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Nutrition Support for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Chemoradiotherapy: How Often and How Long?

Background. Oral intake of many patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) decrease during chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Although prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is recommended, not a few patients complete CRT without using PEG tube. Patients and Methods. The subjects were patients with LAHNC who received CRT. We retrospectively investigated the incidence and duration of nutritional support during and after CRT, and predicting factors of nutritional support. For patients who required nutritional support, we also checked the day of initiation and the duration of nutritional support. Results. Of 53 patients, 29 patients (55%) required nutritional support during and/or after CRT. While no clear relation between requirement of nutritional support and variables including age, T stage, N stage, clinical stage and chemotherapy regimen, there could be some relationships between tumor primary sites and the requirement and duration of nutritional support. 17 (77%) of 22 patients with oropharynx cancer(OP) required nutritional support and prolonged for 4.4 months, and 11 (46%) of 24 patients with hypopharynx cancer(HP) required nutritional support and prolonged for 21.9 months. Conclusion. Nutritional support is indicated many HNC patients treated with CRT and primary sites may have some relation to its indication and duration.

Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement in Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer

Patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs) are at increased risk of experiencing malnutrition, which is associated with poor outcomes. Advances in the treatment of HNCs have resulted in improved outcomes that are associated with severe toxic oral side effects, placing patients at an even greater risk of malnutrition. Prophylactic placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes before treatment may be beneficial in patients with HNC, especially those undergoing more intense treatment regimens. PEG tube placement, however, is not without risks. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted. Systematic evidence assessing both the benefits and harm associated with prophylactic PEG tube placement in patients undergoing treatment for HNC is weak, and benefits and harm have not been established. More research is necessary to inform physician behavior on whether prophylactic PEG tube placement is warranted in the treatment of HNC.

Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Patients With Advanced Head and Neck Tumors Treated by Combined Chemoradiotherapy

Context Few studies have evaluated outcomes of combined chemoradiotherapy for Stage III–IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in terms of the use of nutritional support by means of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Objectives To compare nutritional status and treatment interruption because of acute toxicity in patients with advanced head and neck tumors who were treated by combined chemoradiotherapy and received or did not receive prophylactic PEG tubes. Methods This was a retrospective study that evaluated data obtained from a cancer center in Montpellier, France. A total of 139 consecutive patients treated for Stage III–IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2003 were evaluated in terms of nutritional status before and after therapy, treatment interruption because of toxicity, and duration of hospitalization. Results Seventy-eight of the 139 patients (58%) did not receive prophylactic PEG feeding, and 61 patients (44%) received PEG feeding. Pretreatment nutritional status was worse in the PEG group. Compared with the initial nutritional status, nutritional status at the end of treatment was unchanged in the PEG group and much worse in the group that did not receive the PEG ( P < 0.05). Cumulative incidence of treatment interruption because of toxicity was significantly lower in the PEG group than in the no-PEG group (100 and 236 days of interruption, respectively, P = 0.03) and hospitalization was significantly shorter ( P = 0.003). Conclusion Prophylactic PEG sustains nutritional status and reduces the cumulative incidence of treatment interruption caused by toxicity and duration of hospitalization. A randomized study is warranted to validate these results.

Prophylactic PEG placement in head and neck cancer: How many feeding tubes are unused (and unnecessary)?

To determine the rate of use and non-use of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. All patients with HNC undergoing PEG between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were identified. Patients (or their next-of-kin) were surveyed by phone and all available medical records and cancer registry data were reviewed. Prophylactic PEG was defined as placement in the absence of dysphagia and prior to radiation or chemoradiation. Each patient with a prophylactic PEG was assessed for cancer diagnosis, type of therapy, PEG use, and complications related to PEG. One hundred and three patients had PEG tubes placed for HNC. Thirty four patients (33%) could not be contacted for follow-up. Of the 23 (22.3%) patients with prophylactic PEG tubes, 11/23 (47.8%) either never used the PEG or used it for less than 2 wk. No association with PEG use vs non-use was observed for cancer diagnosis, stage, or specific cancer treatment. Non-use or limited use was observed in 3/6 (50%) treated with radiation alone vs 8/17 (47.1%) treated with chemoradiation (P = 1.0), and 3 of 10 (30%) treated with surgery vs 8 of 13 (62%) not treated with surgery (P = 0.21). Minor complications were reported in 5/23 (21.7%). One (4.3%) major complication was reported. There is a high rate of unnecessary PEG placement when done prophylactically in patients with head and neck cancer.

Unknown primary head and neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy: To what extent the volume should be irradiated

To evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of irradiation with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique in patients with head and neck carcinoma of unknown primary (HNCUP). Between February 2000 and November 2006, 22 consecutive patients diagnosed with HNCUP were treated with IMRT. Of these, four patients were excluded because two of them underwent IMRT only as a boost and the other two had distant metastasis at presentation and were treated palliatively. Of the remaining 18 patients eligible for analysis, 6 had definitive IMRT and 12 had postoperative IMRT (8 with neck dissection and 4 with excisional biopsy). One patient with abnormal lymph node found unexpectedly during carotid endarterectomy was treated to ipsilateral neck only. The target volumes for the other 17 patients include nasopharynx, oropharynx, retropharyngeal lymph nodes, and bilateral neck. In 1 patient who had extensive lymph node involvement, the hypopharynx and the larynx were defined as target. In all other patients the larynx including hypopharynx were defined as dose-limiting structures. The parotids, cervical esophagus, spinal cord, brain stem, optic nerves and the orbits are also outlined as dose-limiting structures. All patients completed their treatment without interruption and severe complications. With a median follow-up time of 25.5 months, 2 patients had persistent cervical lymphadenopathy and 2 had distant metastases. Another patient developed a lung cancer and a second pyriform sinus cancer 25 months after treatment. The 2-year overall survival, regional recurrence-free survival and distant metastases-free survival were 74.2%, 88.5%, and 88.2%, respectively. Six patients had prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes placed before radiation. Most had PEG tubes removed within 7 months after the completion of treatment. IMRT delivered to comprehensive bilateral neck and putative mucosal site (including nasopharynx, oropharynx, and retropharyngeal lymph nodes) appears to be effective for patients with HNCUP. Our preliminary results show that such approach does not compromise local-regional control. Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up are necessary to validate this approach.