INTRODUCTION: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy present a high prevalence of malnutrition at baseline. Prophylactic use of gastrostomy has been suggested for these patients for delivering enteral nutrition. On the other hand, other authors have failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this measure over nasogastric tube feeding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied 40 patients with HNC with moderate or severe malnutrition who were offered either prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy before starting oncologic treatment or close follow-up with nutritional counseling with the placement of a nasogastric tube when necessary. RESULTS: There were no significant changes throughout the study period in weight (p = 0.338), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.314) or serum proteins (p = 0.729), and these changes showed no differences between the gastrostomy vsnasogastric tube feeding groups. The amount of delivered energy was above the estimated energy needs with both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding, but there were no differences in the total energy provided by enteral nutrition between groups. Patients in the gastrostomy group received enteral nutrition support for a longer period of time (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding are effective methods of delivering enteral nutrition in patients with HNC submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy, with no differences between them in terms of avoiding further nutritional deterioration.
INTRODUCTION:Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy present a high prevalence of malnutrition at baseline. Prophylactic use of gastrostomy has been suggested for these patients for delivering enteral nutrition. On the other hand, other authors have failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this measure over nasogastric tube feeding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied 40 patients with HNC with moderate or severe malnutrition who were offered either prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy before starting oncologic treatment or close follow-up with nutritional counseling with the placement of a nasogastric tube when necessary. RESULTS: There were no significant changes throughout the study period in weight (p = 0.338), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.314) or serum proteins (p = 0.729), and these changes showed no differences between the gastrostomy vsnasogastric tube feeding groups. The amount of delivered energy was above the estimated energy needs with both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding, but there were no differences in the total energy provided by enteral nutrition between groups. Patients in the gastrostomy group received enteral nutrition support for a longer period of time (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding are effective methods of delivering enteral nutrition in patients with HNC submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy, with no differences between them in terms of avoiding further nutritional deterioration.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck cancer. Malnutrition. Enteral nutrition. Gastrostomy. Nasogastric tube. Chemoradiotherapy.
Authors: Riccardo Caccialanza; Alessandro Laviano; Cristina Bosetti; Mariateresa Nardi; Valentina Casalone; Lucilla Titta; Roberto Mele; Giovanni De Pergola; Francesco De Lorenzo; Paolo Pedrazzoli Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.603