Tatiana Dragan1, Fréderic Duprez2, André Van Gossum3, Akos Gulyban4, Sylvie Beauvois5, Antoine Digonnet6, Yassine Lalami7, Dirk Van Gestel5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology (Head and Neck Unit), Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger Bordet - 1000 Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. tatiana.dragan@bordet.be. 2. Department of Radiotherapy-Oncology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Gent, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Consultant at the Department of Gastroenterology and Clinical Nutrition, Hopital Erasme and Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Medical Physics Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology (Head and Neck Unit), Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger Bordet - 1000 Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Medical Oncology Clinic, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutritional complications in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (LA-HNC) treated by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) often lead to placement of a prophylactic gastrostomy (PG) tube, while indication lacks harmonization. Our aim was to explore the current PG tube utilization among Belgian radiation oncology centers. METHODS: A survey was distributed to all 24 Belgian Radiation oncology departments, with questions about the number of patient treated per year, whether the PG indication is discussed at the multidisciplinary board, placement technique, time of starting nutrition and removal, its impact on swallowing function and importance of clinical factors. For the latter Relative Importance and Discordance Indexes were calculated to describe the ranking and agreement. RESULTS: All 24 centers submitted the questionnaire. Twenty three treat more than 20 head and neck (HNC) patients per year, while four (1 in 21-50; 3 in 51-100) are not discussing the gastrostomy tube indication at the multidisciplinary board. For the latter, endoscopic placement (68%) is the dominant technique, followed by the radiologic (16%) and laparoscopic (16%) methods. Seventy-five percent start the enteral nutrition when clinically indicated, 17% immediately and 8% from the start of radiotherapy. Majority of specialists (19/24) keep the gastrostomy tube until the patient assume an adequate oral feeding. Fifteen centres are considering PG decrease swallowing function. Regarding factors and their importance in the decision for the PG, foreseen irradiated volume reached highest importance, followed by 'anatomical site', 'patients' choice' and 'postoperative versus definitive' and 'local expertise', with decreasing importance respectively. Disagreement indexes showed moderate variation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a PG tube for LAHNC patients treated by CCRT shows disparity at national level. Prospective studies are needed to ensure proper indication of this supportive measure.
BACKGROUND: Nutritional complications in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (LA-HNC) treated by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) often lead to placement of a prophylactic gastrostomy (PG) tube, while indication lacks harmonization. Our aim was to explore the current PG tube utilization among Belgian radiation oncology centers. METHODS: A survey was distributed to all 24 Belgian Radiation oncology departments, with questions about the number of patient treated per year, whether the PG indication is discussed at the multidisciplinary board, placement technique, time of starting nutrition and removal, its impact on swallowing function and importance of clinical factors. For the latter Relative Importance and Discordance Indexes were calculated to describe the ranking and agreement. RESULTS: All 24 centers submitted the questionnaire. Twenty three treat more than 20 head and neck (HNC) patients per year, while four (1 in 21-50; 3 in 51-100) are not discussing the gastrostomy tube indication at the multidisciplinary board. For the latter, endoscopic placement (68%) is the dominant technique, followed by the radiologic (16%) and laparoscopic (16%) methods. Seventy-five percent start the enteral nutrition when clinically indicated, 17% immediately and 8% from the start of radiotherapy. Majority of specialists (19/24) keep the gastrostomy tube until the patient assume an adequate oral feeding. Fifteen centres are considering PG decrease swallowing function. Regarding factors and their importance in the decision for the PG, foreseen irradiated volume reached highest importance, followed by 'anatomical site', 'patients' choice' and 'postoperative versus definitive' and 'local expertise', with decreasing importance respectively. Disagreement indexes showed moderate variation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a PG tube for LAHNC patients treated by CCRT shows disparity at national level. Prospective studies are needed to ensure proper indication of this supportive measure.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endoscopic gastrostomy; Head and neck cancer; Radiotherapy; Survey
Authors: Katherine A Hutcheson; Mihir K Bhayani; Beth M Beadle; Kathryn A Gold; Eileen H Shinn; Stephen Y Lai; Jan Lewin Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Vivek Verma; Pamela K Allen; Charles B Simone; Hiram A Gay; Steven H Lin Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Miranda E M C Christianen; Cornelis Schilstra; Ivo Beetz; Christina T Muijs; Olga Chouvalova; Fred R Burlage; Patricia Doornaert; Phil W Koken; C René Leemans; Rico N P M Rinkel; Marieke J de Bruijn; G H de Bock; Jan L N Roodenburg; Bernard F A M van der Laan; Ben J Slotman; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Hendrik P Bijl; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Johannes A Langendijk; Patricia Doornaert; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Charles R Leemans; Neil K Aaronson; Ben J Slotman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arash O Naghavi; Michelle I Echevarria; Tobin J Strom; Yazan A Abuodeh; Puja S Venkat; Kamran A Ahmed; Stephanie Demetriou; Jessica M Frakes; Youngchul Kim; Julie A Kish; Jeffery S Russell; Kristen J Otto; Christine H Chung; Louis B Harrison; Andy Trotti; Jimmy J Caudell Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-09-02 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: J A E Langius; S Bakker; D H F Rietveld; H M Kruizenga; J A Langendijk; P J M Weijs; C R Leemans Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 7.640