OBJECTIVE: 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). SETTING: A tertiary academic center. STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: Reactive PEG tube placement may afford patients a shorter duration of usage without incurring greater weight loss or poorer oncologic outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: 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). SETTING: A tertiary academic center. STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: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. CONCLUSIONS: Reactive PEG tube placement may afford patients a shorter duration of usage without incurring greater weight loss or poorer oncologic outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
PEG tube; gastrostomy; head and neck cancer; nutrition
Authors: C P Vlooswijk; P H E van Rooij; J C Kruize; H A Schuring; A Al-Mamgani; N M de Roos Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Alana Aylward; Sarah Abdelaziz; Jason P Hunt; Luke O Buchmann; Richard B Cannon; Shane Lloyd; Ying Hitchcock; Mia Hashibe; Marcus M Monroe Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Johanna Ruohoalho; Katri Aro; Antti A Mäkitie; Timo Atula; Aaro Haapaniemi; Harri Keski-Säntti; Leena Kylänpää; Annika Takala; Leif J Bäck Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Stephanie M Shaw; Heather Flowers; Brian O'Sullivan; Andrew Hope; Louis W C Liu; Rosemary Martino Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 3.438
Authors: Nedeljko Jovanovic; Colleen Dreyer; Sarah Hawkins; Kendra Thouless; David Palma; Philip C Doyle; Julie A Theurer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.603