T Brown1,2, M Banks2, B G M Hughes3,4, C Lin3, L M Kenny3, J D Bauer1. 1. Centre for Dietetics Research (C-DIET-R), School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. 2. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia. 3. Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia. 4. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Since 2007, our institution has used validated guidelines for the insertion of proactive gastrostomy feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer. Helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) delivered by Tomotherapy, is an advanced radiotherapy technique introduced at our centre in 2010. This form of therapy reduces long-term treatment-related toxicity to normal tissues. The aim of this study is to compare weight change and need for tube feeding following H-IMRT (n=53) with patients that would have previously been treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n=134). SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Patients with head and neck cancer assessed as high nutritional risk with recommendation for proactive gastrostomy were identified from cohorts from 2007 to 2008 and 2010 to 2011. Retrospective data were collected on clinical factors, weight change from baseline to completion of treatment, incidence of severe weight loss (⩾ 10%) and tube feeding. Statistical analyses to compare outcomes between the two treatments included χ(2)-test, Fisher's exact and two-sample Wilcoxon tests (P<0.05). RESULTS: The H-IMRT cohort had higher proportions of patients with definitive chemoradiotherapy (P=0.032) and more advanced N stage (P<0.001). Nutrition outcomes were not significantly different between H-IMRT and conformal radiotherapy, respectively: need for proactive gastrostomy (n=49, 92% versus n=115, 86%, P=0.213), median percentage weight change (-7.2% versus -7.3%, P=0.573) and severe weight loss incidence (28% versus 27%, P=0.843). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups had median weight loss >5% and high incidences of tube feeding and severe weight loss. Nutrition intervention remains critical in this patient population, despite advances in radiotherapy techniques, and no changes to current management are recommended.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Since 2007, our institution has used validated guidelines for the insertion of proactive gastrostomy feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer. Helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) delivered by Tomotherapy, is an advanced radiotherapy technique introduced at our centre in 2010. This form of therapy reduces long-term treatment-related toxicity to normal tissues. The aim of this study is to compare weight change and need for tube feeding following H-IMRT (n=53) with patients that would have previously been treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n=134). SUBJECTS/ METHODS:Patients with head and neck cancer assessed as high nutritional risk with recommendation for proactive gastrostomy were identified from cohorts from 2007 to 2008 and 2010 to 2011. Retrospective data were collected on clinical factors, weight change from baseline to completion of treatment, incidence of severe weight loss (⩾ 10%) and tube feeding. Statistical analyses to compare outcomes between the two treatments included χ(2)-test, Fisher's exact and two-sample Wilcoxon tests (P<0.05). RESULTS: The H-IMRT cohort had higher proportions of patients with definitive chemoradiotherapy (P=0.032) and more advanced N stage (P<0.001). Nutrition outcomes were not significantly different between H-IMRT and conformal radiotherapy, respectively: need for proactive gastrostomy (n=49, 92% versus n=115, 86%, P=0.213), median percentage weight change (-7.2% versus -7.3%, P=0.573) and severe weight loss incidence (28% versus 27%, P=0.843). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups had median weight loss >5% and high incidences of tube feeding and severe weight loss. Nutrition intervention remains critical in this patient population, despite advances in radiotherapy techniques, and no changes to current management are recommended.
Authors: J Arends; G Bodoky; F Bozzetti; K Fearon; M Muscaritoli; G Selga; M A E van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren; M von Meyenfeldt; G Zürcher; R Fietkau; E Aulbert; B Frick; M Holm; M Kneba; H J Mestrom; A Zander Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2006-05-12 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: S Tyldesley; F Sheehan; P Munk; V Tsang; D Skarsgard; C A Bowman; S E Hobenshield Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gabriela Studer; Evangelia Peponi; Stephan Kloeck; Thomas Dossenbach; Gerhard Huber; Christoph Glanzmann Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Amanda M Duffy; Mark Halaki; Allan Spigelman; Venessa Chin; Richard M Gallagher; Victoria M Flood Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Imran Petkar; Keith Rooney; Justin W G Roe; Joanne M Patterson; David Bernstein; Justine M Tyler; Marie A Emson; James P Morden; Kathrin Mertens; Elizabeth Miles; Matthew Beasley; Tom Roques; Shreerang A Bhide; Kate L Newbold; Kevin J Harrington; Emma Hall; Christopher M Nutting Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Teresa E Brown; Merrilyn D Banks; Brett G M Hughes; Charles Y Lin; Lizbeth M Kenny; Judith D Bauer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 7.640