A Yanni1, D Dequanter2, J R Lechien3, I Loeb1, A Rodriguez4, R Javadian1, M Van Gossum5. 1. Department of Stomatology and maxillofacial surgery, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. 2. Department of Stomatology and maxillofacial surgery, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium; Laboratory of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Department of Anatomy and Experimental Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Mons School of Medicine, University of Mons (UMons), UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, Avenue du Champ-de-Mars, 6, 7000 Mons, Belgium. Electronic address: jerome.lechien@umons.ac.be. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Department of gastroenterology, School of Medicine, université Libre de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Head 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Forty-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. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic 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.
INTRODUCTION: Head 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Forty-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. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic 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.
Authors: Bárbara Ferrão; Pedro Miguel Neves; Teresa Santos; Manuel Luís Capelas; Antti Mäkitie; Paula Ravasco Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 3.603