Literature DB >> 3108205

Tube feeding enteral nutritional support in patients receiving radiation therapy for advanced head and neck cancer.

R D Pezner, J O Archambeau, J A Lipsett, W A Kokal, W Thayer, L R Hill.   

Abstract

A retrospective study evaluated the role of tube feeding enteral nutritional support in patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) for Stage III and IV squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Tube feeding (TF) by either nasogastric, cervical esophagostomy, or gastrostomy route was based on individual physician preference and patient acceptance. TF feeding starting before and continuing through RT (planned TF) was completed in 17 patients, whereas 9 patients did not receive TF until they lost weight during RT (interventional TF). No tube feeding was performed in 63 patients. By the end of RT, the planned TF group lost an average of 4.8% of initial body weight, compared to 7.1% in the no TF group and 9.4% in the interventional TF group. At the end of RT, only 6% of the planned TF group had lost over 10% of initial body weight, compared to 24% of the no TF group and 44% of the interventional group. Excluding patients who continued to lose weight after the end of RT due to rapidly recurrent tumor, 49% of the no TF group had a post-RT nadir weight loss over 10% of initial body weight, compared to 0% of the planned RT group. However, failure to receive the full RT dose and/or lengthy rest periods during RT were just as likely to occur in the planned TF group as in the no TF group. This retrospective review also could not demonstrate improved survival in the planned TF group. Complications, including peptic ulcer disease, aspiration pneumonia, cervical stoma abscess, and hepatic encephalopathy, occurred in 7 of the 26 patients (27%) receiving either planned or interventional TF. We conclude that TF will help minimize weight loss due to side effects of RT for head and neck cancer, particularly when TF is instituted before the onset of significant weight loss due to RT side effects. Survival differences, however, were not apparent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3108205     DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(87)90110-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  4 in total

1.  Predictive Factors for Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Tube Placement and Use in Head and Neck Patients Following Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Treatment: Concordance, Discrepancies, and the Role of Gabapentin.

Authors:  Wuyang Yang; Todd R McNutt; Sara A Dudley; Rachit Kumar; Heather M Starmer; Christine G Gourin; Joseph A Moore; Kimberly Evans; Mysha Allen; Nishant Agrawal; Jeremy D Richmon; Christine H Chung; Harry Quon
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.438

2.  Patient Adherence to Dysphagia Recommendations: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Brittany N Krekeler; Courtney K Broadfoot; Stephen Johnson; Nadine P Connor; Nicole Rogus-Pulia
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2017-09-30       Impact factor: 3.438

3.  Modified radiology-guided percutaneous gastrostomy (MRPG) for patients with complete obstruction of the upper digestive tract and who are without endoscopic or nasogastric access.

Authors:  Siu-Cheung Chan; Winnie Chiu-Wing Chu; Kar-Wai Liu; Chun-Ta Liao; Tsung-Shih Lee; Shu-Hang Ng
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 3.500

4.  Pre-radiotherapy feeding tube identifies a poor prognostic subset of postoperative p16 positive oropharyngeal carcinoma patients.

Authors:  Vivek Verma; Jingxia Liu; Laura Eschen; Jonathan Danieley; Christopher Spencer; James S Lewis; Jason Diaz; Jay F Piccirillo; Douglas R Adkins; Brian Nussenbaum; Wade L Thorstad; Hiram A Gay
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.481

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.