Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Research Articles

Effect of Prophylactic Placement of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy on the Surgical Prognosis in Patients With Oral Cancer: A Pilot Study.

This study assessed the application of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pPEG) in patients with newly diagnosed oral cancer (OC) who underwent surgery and were ready for subsequential chemoradiation. In total, 113 patients who underwent OC surgical treatment were divided into pPEG (n = 26), nasogastric tube (n = 54), and oral feeding (n = 33) groups. Their baseline characteristics, surgery-related outcomes, and nutritional data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and χ2 test. No statistical significance was shown among the 3 groups using different flaps for reconstructing OC-related defects (P > 0.05). Patients of the pPEG group had the lowest incidence of surgical site infection (SSI; 23.1%, P = 0.006), but the longest hospital stay (24.1 ± 7.9d, P < 0.001). Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy may decrease the frequency of SSI but increase the length of hospitalization in SSI OC. However, multicentric prospective clinical controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to further validate our findings.

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.

Effect of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy on Quality of Life after Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Cross-Sectional Study.

(1) Background: Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) maintained nutritional status and improved survival of patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). However, the role of PEG in patients’ quality of life (QoL) is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect of PEG on the QoL of patients with LA-NPC without progression. (2) Methods: Patients with LA-NPC between 1 June 2010 and 30 June 2014 in Fujian Cancer Hospital were divided into PEG and non-PEG groups. The QoL Questionnaire core 30 (QLQ-C30), incidence of adverse effects, weight, and xerostomia recovery were compared between the two groups of patients without progression as of 30 June 2020. (3) Results: No statistically significant difference in the scores of each QLQ-C30 scale between the two groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of xerostomia was higher in the PEG group than in the non-PEG group (p = 0.044), but the association was not seen after adjusting for gender, age, T, and N stage (OR: 0.902, 95%CI: 0.485−1.680). No significant difference in the incidence of other adverse effects as well as in weight and dry mouth recovery (p > 0.05). (4) Conclusion: PEG seems not to have a detrimental effect on long-term Qol, including the self-reported swallowing function of NPC patients without progressive disease.

Impact of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Feeding on Nutritional Status in Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer

Introduction: Oesophageal cancer causes dysphagia and weight loss. Malnutrition further worsens with multimodal treatment. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement in the nutritional status of patients with oesophageal cancer requiring chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Methods: A comparative study with a prospective arm and a historical cohort was conducted. Oesophageal cancer patients undergoing CRT with dysphagia grade >2 and/or weight loss >10% were submitted to PEG-tube placement (pull method) before CRT. Stoma seeding was evaluated through a swab obtained after placement and, in surgical patients, the resected stoma. A matched historical cohort without PEG placement was used as control (trial ACTRN12616000697482). Results: Twenty-nine patients (intervention group, IG) were compared to 30 patients (control group, CG). Main outcomes did not differ in the IG and CG: weight loss during CRT 8.1 ± 5.5 kg versus 9.1 ± 4.2 kg (p = 0.503); 6-month mortality after CRT or surgery 17.2% versus 26.7% (p = 0.383); perioperative complication rate 54.5% versus 55.6% (p = 1.000); unplanned hospital admissions 34.5% versus 40.0% (p = 0.661). In the CG, during CRT, 14 (46.7%) patients presented with dysphagia grade 3–4, of whom 12 required nasogastric tube feeding (n = 10), surgical gastrostomy (n = 1), and oesophageal dilation (n = 1). In the IG, 89.7% used the PEG tube during CRT, sometimes exclusively in 51.7%. Adverse events were mainly minor (n = 12, 41.4%), mostly late peristomal infections, 1 major complication (exploratory laparotomy due to suspected colonic interposition, not confirmed). There was no cytological or histological evidence of stomal tumour seeding. Conclusion: Weight loss, hospital admissions, surgical complications, and mortality were identical in oesophageal cancer patients referred for CRT, regardless of prophylactic PEG. However, half of the patients required exclusive enteral nutritional support, making PEG-tube placement an alternative to consider.

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.

Tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy: A systematic review.

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are frequently malnourished at the time of diagnosis and before beginning treatment. In addition, chemoradiotherapy causes or exacerbates symptoms such as alteration or loss of taste, mucositis, xerostomia, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, with consequent worsening of malnutrition. If obstructing cancer and/or mucositis interferes with swallowing, enteral nutrition should be delivered by a nasogastric tube (NGT) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). To review studies comparing NGT's and PEG's nutrition outcomes, survival, hospitalizations, radiotherapy interruptions, quality of life, and swallowing function. Two hundred fifty publications were identified via electronic databases. 26 manuscripts that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis. We divided the analysis in two sections: (1) comparison of enteral nutrition through NGT or PEG and (2) comparison of reactive PEG (R-PEG) and prophylactic PEG (P-PEG). They have comparable nutrition outcomes, number of radiotherapy interruptions, survival, and quality of life, whereas swallow function seems better with NGT. PEG may be associated with major complications such as exit-site infection, malfunction, leakage, pain, pulmonary infection, and higher costs. Nevertheless, NGTs dislodged more often; patients find NGTs more inconvenient; NGTs may cause aspiration pneumonia; P-PEG and R-PEG have similar nutrition outcomes, number of radiotherapy interruptions, and survival. PEG does not have better nutrition, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes than NGT. Prophylactic feeding through NGT or PEG, compared with reactive feeding, does not offer significant advantages in nutrition outcomes, radiotherapy interruptions, and survival. However, the number of prospective randomized studies on this topic is limited; consequently, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Further adequate, prospective randomized studies are needed.

Effect of prophylactic gastrostomy on nutritional and clinical outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer.

We aimed to identify which enteral feeding method was most beneficial for patients and compare clinical outcomes, quality of life, and complication rates by assessing patients who underwent prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pPEG) tube, reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (rPEG) tube or reactive nasogastric tube (rNGT) insertion. Patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs) were enrolled between April 1, 2013 and April 17, 2019 (n = 335; 296 males, 39 females). Data concerning patient characteristics and treatment modalities were extracted from the medical records. Comparisons between enteral feeding methods were made by univariate and multivariate analysis. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were analyzed by the log rank test using the Kaplan-Meier method. A total of 335 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 29.5 months. There were forty-six patients in the pPEG tube group, 23 patients in the rPEG tube group, and 266 patients in the rNGT group. pPEG, increased body-mass index (BMI), and N0-1 category were significantly associated with less weight loss in the multivariate analysis (all P &lt; 0.05). pPEG decreased the rate of radiotherapy delay compared with that of reactive interventions (23.1% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.007). In terms of quality of life, global health status, role functioning, emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, pain, and dyspnea were significantly improved in the pPEG tube group (all P &lt; 0.05). BMI and weight loss were independent prognostic factors for clinical survival outcomes (all P &lt; 0.05). pPEG could improve nutrition outcomes, reduce treatment delay, and maintain quality of life.

Comparison of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with reactive enteral nutrition in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy: A systematic review.

Nutrition support is frequently indicated in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). However, the optimal timing of enteral tube placement and feeding commencement is unknown. This review aims to compare the outcomes for patients with HNC undergoing curative intent radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) receiving either prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pPEG) tube placement/feeding or reactive enteral nutrition (rEN). A literature search was conducted in March 2020 across PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients (≥18 years) with HNC who had received either pPEG or rEN were included. Outcomes examined were weight change, nutritional status, body mass index, treatment interruptions, quality of life (QoL), disease-free survival and overall survival. Study quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-bias Tool for Randomized Trials Version 2 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, respectively. Five studies (three RCTs) (n=298) were included and definitions of pPEG and rEN were heterogenous. pPEG was associated with a clinically important reduction in short-term critical weight loss (>10% weight loss), and significantly improved short-term QoL in patients with HNC. The timing of nutrition support commencement had no effect on all other outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence was 'moderate' for: nutritional status; treatment interruptions; short-term QoL; disease-free survival; and 'low' for all other outcomes. Patients with HNC undergoing RT or CRT receiving pPEG tube feeding/placement were less likely to experience short-term critical weight loss and have improved short-term QoL compared to rEN. Further well-designed RCTs with consistent definitions of tube feeding protocols and the use of validated tools to evaluate nutritional status, will assist to increase the certainty of evidence and confirm the beneficial effects observed.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy can improve survival outcomes in patients with N3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy

ObjectivesOur previous study revealed that percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and intensive nutritional support may minimize body weight loss, maintain nutritional status, and offer better treatment tolerance for patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC) during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). This study aimed to further explore the potential long-term survival benefits of PEG in LA-NPC. MethodsBetween June 1, 2010 and June 30, 2014, a total of 133 consecutive LA-NPC patients who received prophylactic PEG (pPEG) feeding before the initiation of CCRT were included. Meanwhile, an additional 133 non-PEG patients, who were matched for age; sex; and tumor, node, and metastases stage, were selected as control cohort. The log-rank test was used to compare survival distributions between groups. Multivariate prognosis analysis was conducted using a Cox’s proportional hazards regression model. ResultsAfter a median follow-up time of 81 months (range: 4–119 months), pPEG was not associated with significant survival benefits in the whole cohort. However, the N3 NPC patients who underwent PEG had significantly higher 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) (84.0 and 76.0%, respectively) than those who did not undergo PEG (56.7 and 45.6%, respectively; p < 0.05). Univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that PEG was an independent factor for N3 survival. ConclusionPEG can maintain the nutritional status and improve the rate of treatment completion for LA-NPC patients who underwent CCRT, and these advantages can transfer into survival benefits in N3 NPC. Further multicenter prospective clinical trials are 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.

The impact of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy

The impact of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy

Effectiveness of Prophylactic Gastrostomy in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated by Image-Guided Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy: Practice Proposal by the International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube feedings in locally advanced head and neck cancer patients undergoing image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and concurrent chemotherapy.

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.

Pretreatment predictive factors for feasibility of oral intake in adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has been widely performed before concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN) because severe oral mucositis and dysphagia induced by CCRT lead to difficulty with oral intake. However, it is controversial whether all patients require prophylactic PEG for adjuvant CCRT. This study evaluated predictive factors for the feasibility of oral intake in adjuvant CCRT for patients with LASCCHN. This study retrospectively analyzed 117 LASCCHN patients who underwent surgery followed by adjuvant CCRT with cisplatin at Shizuoka Cancer Center between April 2008 and December 2018. To investigate predictive factors for the feasibility of oral intake, tumor factors, treatment factors and social factors were included in multivariate analyses. Of the 117 patients, 25 received total laryngectomy and 92 received other surgery. In multivariate analysis, total laryngectomy [HR (hazard ratio) 0.09, P = 0.001] and oral cavity of primary tumor location (HR 0.21, P = 0.031) were significantly associated with the feasibility of oral intake. Difficulty obtaining adequate nutrition via oral intake from initiation of CCRT until 1year after its completion was significantly rarer in the total laryngectomy group than in the other surgery group (16% vs. 57%, P < 0.001). Our study suggests that majority of patients who underwent total laryngectomy are able to maintain oral intake during adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Is prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy necessary for chemoradiotherapy after total laryngectomy?

Abstract Background Post-operative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with cisplatin (CDDP) for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (LASCCHN) frequently induces severe oral mucositis and dysphagia, which lead to insufficient oral intake and negative impact on treatment outcomes. Therefore, prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has been widely performed. However, PEG placement often causes some complications such as bleeding or abscess. The aim of this study is to evaluate necessity of prophylactic PEG in adjuvant CCRT for high-risk patients with LASCCHN who underwent total laryngectomy. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed 117 LASCCHN patients who underwent either total laryngectomy or other surgery followed by adjuvant CCRT with CDDP at Shizuoka Cancer Center between April 2008 and December 2018. We evaluated the rate of patients unable to obtain sufficient nutrition via oral intake from initiation of CCRT until one year after completion of CCRT, and nutrition-support-free survival. The risk factors for inability of oral intake were determined by using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results Of 117 patients, 25 patients received total laryngectomy and 92 patients received other surgery. The rate of patients unable to obtain sufficient nutrition via oral intake was significantly lower in the total laryngectomy group (16% vs 57%, P Conclusion Prophylactic PEG for adjuvant CCRT may not be necessarily required for the LASCCHN patients who underwent total laryngectomy because of high feasibility of oral intake.

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.

Use of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pPEG) tube in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and correlation of weight loss with treatment interruptions.

e17509 Background: HNC patients are at risk for weight loss which can cause treatment interruptions, and poorer outcomes. There is no consensus on optimal timing of PEG tube placement in HNC patients undergoing concurrent ChemoTherapy (CT) and RadioTherapy (RT). The aim of this study is to determine if pPEG tube would decrease weight loss (WL) in HNC patients. We also analyzed correlation between WL and CT interruptions (CTI), RT interruptions (RTI), and intravenous fluid requirements (IVFr). Methods: This is a prospective study. A total of 16 HNC patients undergoing concurrent CT, RT were included. Before treatment initiation, a PEG tube placement was recommended as a mode of nutrition. 13 patients chose to get pPEG tube and 3 refused. We collected data on weight at 0 and 2 months, CTI, RTI, and IVFr. CTI included missed as well as reduced chemotherapy doses. RTI included missed radiations. Statistical tests used - t-test, Levene’s test for equality of variances and point biserial correlation. Results: Median age - 63 years; Gender: 14 Male/2 Female; Tumor location - Oral cavity - 31.3%; Oropharynx - 43.7%; Larynx - 25%; Nasopharynx and Hypopharynx- 0%. Stages were - II (6.2%), III (37.5%) and IV (56.3%). 2 patients were non-smoker and 4 were Human Papilloma Virus positive. Mean WL(lb) in pPEG (n = 11) vs non-PEG (n = 3) group was 10.3 vs 20.3 (p = 0.045, one-tailed t-test). Average percentage of WL: PEG vs non-PEG - 5.8 vs 8.2; RTI vs not - 8.9 vs 5.3; CTI vs not - 6.9 vs 5.8; IVFr vs not - 6.8 vs 4.5 ( &gt; 7.5% WL over 3 months is significant (ADA/ASPEN)). CTI, RTI and IVFr were positively correlated to WL (correlation coefficient: 0.16; 0.32; 0.17 respectively). CTI and RTI in pPEG group were 23.1% and 38.5% respectively. CTI and RTI in non-PEG group were 33.3% and 66.7% respectively. 2 patients in pPEG group had average weight gain of 2.75 lb. Only 3 patients had PEG tube related complications - infections and clogging. Conclusions: pPEG tube decreases weight loss in locally advanced HNC patients. Patients with higher weight loss had more chemoradiation interruptions and IVFr. HNC patients undergoing concurrent CT, RT should be encouraged to maintain weight and get a PEG tube.

Malnutrition in head and neck cancer patients: Impacts and indications of a prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

IntroductionHead and neck cancer (HNC) patients often experience malnutrition before and during treatment. Prophylactic gastrostomy has emerged as an efficient tool for ensuring adequate nutrition. However, there is no suitable algorithm able to identify patients at high risk of malnutrition. The aim of this study was to describe the nutritional management, to assess the impact of prophylactic gastrostomy, and to identify predictors of malnutrition. MethodsThis retrospective study included 152 patients treated with surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy for HNC. The patients were classified according to their gastrostomy status (prophylactic or non-prophylactic). Nutritional, tumoral and treatment characteristics were reported. Clinical and nutritional outcomes were measured 6 weeks after the beginning of treatment. In order to describe the nutritional management and the impact of prophylactic gastrostomy on patients, univariate analysis was generated using chi-square test and Mann–Whitney test or Student's t-test. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with malnutrition. ResultsForty-one patients received prophylactic gastrostomy whereas 111 patients had no nutritional support. Prophylactic gastrostomy placement was associated with a lower initial body mass index, with severe malnutrition, and with initial oral intake disorder. Patients who did not experienced prophylactic gastrostomy had much worse outcomes such as hospital readmissions (P=0.042), relative weight loss at 6 weeks (P<0.0001), dysphagia, severe malnutrition, and poor state of health (P=0.001). Our complication rates (4.9%) were lower than the usual range (5.9–9.3%) and no life-threatening complication was reported. Positive N status, oral intake disorder, concomitant radiochemotherapy, nasopharyngeal, and hypopharyngeal tumor site were significant predictive factors for malnutrition. ConclusionsProphylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy showed advantages in terms of hospital readmissions, relative weight loss at 6 weeks, dysphagia, severe malnutrition, and poor state of health. Tumoral, nutritional and treatment characteristics seem to be predictors for malnutrition. Hence, physicians should integrate these factors in their nutrition algorithm approach.