AIMS: The study aimed to compare treatment compliance and nutritional outcomes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients during chemoradiation. METHODS: Clinical information of patients with NPC that underwent chemoradiation during 2004-2009 were retrieved from the hospital database and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorised into a prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PPEG) group and a non-PPEG group. Clinical information including treatment compliance, weight, haematological and renal toxicity was compared. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were reviewed and categorised into PPEG (n=77) and non-PPEG (n=142). Significant differences in absolute percentage weight loss between groups were found from the 3rd cycle of chemotherapy. There were 24.2, 20.3 and 24.8% in the third, the fourth and the fifth cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. Migration of grade 2 to grade 3 weight loss was obviously seen in the 3rd cycle as well. A significant difference of grade 3 or more hypokalemia was found with values of 14.3% and 50% in the PPEG and non-PPEG groups, respectively. Other toxicity parameters and treatment compliance were not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of PPEG resulted in decreased severe weight loss, reduced migration from grade 2 to grade 3 weight loss and reduced hypokalaemia. However, benefits in treatment compliance could not be detected. So consideration of PPEG in NPC patients requires care.
AIMS: The study aimed to compare treatment compliance and nutritional outcomes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients during chemoradiation. METHODS: Clinical information of patients with NPC that underwent chemoradiation during 2004-2009 were retrieved from the hospital database and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorised into a prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PPEG) group and a non-PPEG group. Clinical information including treatment compliance, weight, haematological and renal toxicity was compared. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were reviewed and categorised into PPEG (n=77) and non-PPEG (n=142). Significant differences in absolute percentage weight loss between groups were found from the 3rd cycle of chemotherapy. There were 24.2, 20.3 and 24.8% in the third, the fourth and the fifth cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. Migration of grade 2 to grade 3 weight loss was obviously seen in the 3rd cycle as well. A significant difference of grade 3 or more hypokalemia was found with values of 14.3% and 50% in the PPEG and non-PPEG groups, respectively. Other toxicity parameters and treatment compliance were not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of PPEG resulted in decreased severe weight loss, reduced migration from grade 2 to grade 3 weight loss and reduced hypokalaemia. However, benefits in treatment compliance could not be detected. So consideration of PPEG in NPCpatients requires care.