Is nutrition support related to a poor prognosis in head and neck cancer patients? Thoughts about the secondary analysis of RTOG trial 90-03

Naples Prognostic Score as an Independent Predictor of Survival Outcomes for Resected Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Treatment

Background

The Naples Prognostic Score (NPS) can reflect patient's nutritional and inflammatory status, which is identified as a prognostic indicator for various malignant tumors. However, its significance in patients with resected locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) patients who receive neoadjuvant treatment remains unclear so far.

Methods

A total of 165 LA-NSCLC patients surgically treated from May 2012 to November 2017 were retrospectively investigated. The LA-NSCLC patients were divided into three groups according to NPS scores. The receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was performed to reveal the discriminatory ability of NPS and other indicators for predicting the survival. The NPS and clinicopathological variables were further evaluated the prognostic value by univariate and multivariate Cox analysis.

Results

The NPS was related to age (P = 0.046), smoking history (P = 0.004), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (P = 0.005), and adjuvant treatment (P = 0.017). Patients with high NPS scores had worse overall survival (OS) (group 1 vs 0, P = 0.006; group 2 vs 0, P < 0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (group 1 vs 0, P < 0.001; group 2 vs 0, P < 0.001). The ROC analysis demonstrated that NPS had better predictive ability than other prognostic indicators. Multivariate analysis revealed that NPS was independent prognostic indicator of OS (group 1 vs 0, hazard ratio [HR] =2.591, P = 0.023; group 2 vs 0, HR = 8.744, P = 0.001) and DFS (group 1 vs 0, HR =3.754, P < 0.001; group 2 vs 0, HR = 9.673, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The NPS could be an independent prognostic indicator in patients with resected LA-NSCLC receiving neoadjuvant treatment and more reliable than the other nutritional and inflammatory indicators.

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in treatment of head and neck cancer: a comprehensive review and call for evidence-based medicine

BACKGROUND

Patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs) are at increased risk of experiencing malnutrition, which is associated with poor outcomes. Advances in the treatment of HNCs have resulted in improved outcomes that are associated with severe toxic oral side effects, placing patients at an even greater risk of malnutrition. Prophylactic placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes before treatment may be beneficial in patients with HNC, especially those undergoing more intense treatment regimens. PEG tube placement, however, is not without risks.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted.

RESULTS

Systematic evidence assessing both the benefits and harm associated with prophylactic PEG tube placement in patients undergoing treatment for HNC is weak, and benefits and harm have not been established.

CONCLUSIONS

More research is necessary to inform physician behavior on whether prophylactic PEG tube placement is warranted in the treatment of HNC.

Evaluating the role of prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement prior to definitive chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of prophylactic gastrostomy tube (GT) placement on acute and long-term outcome for patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred twenty consecutive patients were treated with chemoradiotherapy for Stage III/IV head and neck cancer to a median dose of 70 Gy (range, 64-74 Gy). The most common primary site was the oropharynx (66 patients). Sixty-seven patients (56%) were treated using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Seventy patients (58%) received prophylactic GT placement at the discretion of the physician before initiation of chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

Prophylactic GT placement significantly reduced weight loss during radiation therapy from 43 pounds (range, 0 to 76 pounds) to 19 pounds (range, 0 to 51 pounds), which corresponded to a net change of -14% (range, 0% to -30%) and -8% (range, +1% to -22%) from baseline, respectively (p < 0.001). However, the proportion of patients who were GT-dependent at 6- and 12-months after treatment was 41% and 21%, respectively, compared with 8% and 0%, respectively, for those with and without prophylactic GT (p < 0.001). Additionally, prophylactic GT was associated with a significantly higher incidence of late esophageal stricture compared with those who did not have prophylactic GT (30% vs. 6%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although prophylactic GT placement was effective at preventing acute weight loss and the need for intravenous hydration, it was also associated with significantly higher rates of late esophageal toxicity. The benefits of this strategy must be balanced with the risks.