Gastric transcatheter chemoembolization combined with systemic chemotherapy vs. systemic chemotherapy alone for patients with advanced gastric cardiac cancer presenting with dysphagia: A case control study

The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of gastric transcatheter chemoembolization (GTC) combined with systemic chemotherapy (SYS) compared with SYS alone in managing dysphagia, and improving the quality of life (QoL) and nutritional status of patients with advanced gastric cardiac cancer (AGCC). A retrospective review was performed using data from consecutive patients with AGCC who experienced dysphagia and underwent either SYS alone or SYS combined with GTC from January 2018 to December 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to address potential confounding factors. Ogilvie dysphagia scores were used to assess dysphagia, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General 7 (FACT-G7) was used to assess QoL, and the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) was used to evaluate nutritional status. After PSM, a total of 228 patients were included in the analysis, with 114 in each group. At 4 and 8 weeks after the initial treatment, the GTC + SYS group demonstrated significantly lower median Ogilvie scores compared with the SYS alone group (P<0.001). Similarly, the median PG-SGA score at 4 weeks after the initial treatment was 2.0 in the GTC + SYS group and 6.0 in the SYS alone group. The median FACT-G7 scores in the GTC + SYS group was 13.0, compared with 10.5 in the SYS alone group. These differences remained significant at 8 weeks (P<0.001). In conclusion, the addition of GTC to SYS may more effectively and promptly relieve dysphagia, improve nutritional status and enhance QoL compared with SYS alone in patients with AGCC presenting with dysphagia.

Metastasis to gastrostomy sites from upper aerodigestive tract malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Metastasis to the gastrostomy site in patients with upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) malignancies is a rare but devastating adverse event that has been poorly described. Our aim was to determine the overall incidence and clinicopathologic characteristics observed with development of gastrostomy site metastasis in patients with UADT cancers.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6138 studies retrieved from Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register after being queried for studies including gastrostomy site metastasis in patients with UADT malignancies.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 121 studies. Pooled analysis showed an overall event rate gastrostomy site metastasis of .5% (95% confidence interval [CI], .4%-.7%). Subgroup analysis showed an event rate of .56% (95% CI, .40%-.79%) with the pull technique and .29% (95% CI, .15%-.55%) with the push technique. Clinicopathologic characteristics observed with gastrostomy site metastasis were late-stage disease (T3/T4) (57.8%), positive lymph node status (51.2%), and no evidence of systemic disease (M0) (62.8%) at initial presentation. The average time from gastrostomy placement to diagnosis of metastasis was 7.78 ± 4.9 months, average tumor size on detection was 4.65 cm (standard deviation, 2.02), and average length of survival was 7.26 months (standard deviation, 6.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrostomy site metastasis is a rare but serious adverse event that occurs at an overall rate of .5%, particularly in patients with advanced-stage disease, and is observed with a very poor prognosis. These findings emphasize a need for clinical practice guidelines to include a regular assessment of the PEG site and highlight the importance of detection and management of gastrostomy site metastasis by the multidisciplinary care oncology team.

Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications

Background and study aims  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are techniques used for long-term enteral feeding. Our primary aim was to analyze procedure-related and 30-day mortality and complications between PEG and PRG in relation to indications. Patients and methods  A single-center retrospective analysis was performed thath included all adult patients receiving initial PEG (January 2008 until April 2016) and PRG (January 2010 until April 2016). Outcomes were mortality (procedure-related, 30-day), complications (early (≤ 30 days) and late) and success rates. Results  A total of 760 procedures (469 PRG and 291 PEG) were analyzed. Most common indications were head and neck cancer (HNC), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Success rates for placement were 91.2 % for PEG and 97.1 % for PRG ( P  = 0.001). Procedure-related mortality was 1.7 % in PEG and 0.4 % in PRG ( P  = 0.113). The 30-day mortality was 10.7 % in PEG and 5.1 % in PRG ( P  = 0.481 after multivariate logistic regression) CVA was associated with higher 30-day mortality, whereas ALS, higher body weight, and prophylactic placements in HNC were associated with lower rates. Tube-related complications were less frequent in PEG, both early (2.7 % vs. 26.4 %, P  ≤ 0.001) and late (8.6 % vs. 31.5 %, P  ≤ 0.001). The percentage of major complications and infections did not differ. Conclusions  With respect to procedure-related and 30-day mortality, PEG and PRG compare equally. PRG had a higher procedural success rate. Tube-related complications and pain are less frequent after PEG compared to PRG. The choice for either PEG or PRG therefore should primarily be based on local facilities and expertise.

Comparison of Introducer Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Open Gastrostomy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients

In esophageal cancer treatment, nutrition by feeding tube has been demonstrated to improve patient tolerance of treatment, quality of life, and long-term outcomes. The open gastrostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using introducer technique are procedures that avoid cancer cells seeding and also improve patient's nutritional status, hydration, and medication. The aim of this study is to compare the results of the introducer PEG and open gastrostomy in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. A retrospective study was analyzed in the advanced esophageal cancer patients who indicated and received feeding support between January 2016 and December 2017. Twenty-eight patients in introducer PEG and 36 patients in open gastrostomy presented the following comparative data: mean operative duration time shorter, less pain score, and shorter hospitalization in introducer PEG than open gastrostomy. Both groups showed no readmission or 30-day mortality. The adverse events of open gastrostomy demonstrated higher than introducer PEG group. Both introducer PEG and open gastrostomy were the safe options for advanced esophageal cancer patients indicating for enteral feeding and to avoid cancer cell seeding but the introducer PEG demonstrated the effective minimally invasive procedure with fewer complications.

Pain and Swelling after Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Removal: An Unexpected Evolution

Gastrostomy site metastization is considered an uncommon complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement in patients with head and neck tumours, but it is important to consider this possibility when evaluating gastrostomy-related symptoms. The authors present the case of a 40-year-old male with excessive alcohol consumption and active smoking, diagnosed with a stage IV oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. The patient developed a paraneoplastic demyelinating motor polyneuropathy that, associated with tumour mass effect, caused dysphagia with need for nasogastric tube feeding. Treatment with radiotherapy and then chemoradiotherapy was administered and a PEG was placed with the pull method. Cancer remission and resolution of polyneuropathy was achieved, so PEG was removed. Two weeks later, the patient presented with pain and swelling at the gastrostomy site suggesting a local abscess, with improvement after drainage and antibiotic therapy. After 1 month, there was a tumour mass at the gastrostomy site and an oropharyngeal cancer metastasis was diagnosed. The patient underwent surgical excision of abdominal wall metastasis and abdominal disease was controlled. Nevertheless, there was subsequent oropharyngeal neoplasia recurrence and the patient died 6 months later. This case raises the discussion about gastrostomy placement methods that could avoid gastrostomy site metastization, the possible differential diagnosis, and diagnostic workout. Surgical resection may allow metastatic disease control, but by primary disease evolution greatly affects prognosis.

Tumor implantation following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion for head and neck and oesophageal cancer: Review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Because of publication bias, there is uncertainty about the true incidence of tumor seeding or implantation in patients with head and neck or oesophageal cancer undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion.

METHODS

In order to obtain a more reliable estimate of risk, a systematic review was undertaken. Randomized or non-randomized studies and case reports were identified by electronic searching. A risk of bias assessment was carried out for each study.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight cases from 74 published case reports and 1 unpublished case were identified. Synchronous distant metastases were present in 37%. Analysis of case series (6192 patients) considered to carry a moderate risk of bias suggests an incidence of seeding after PEG insertion of 0.32%. Studies carrying a lower risk of bias indicate a risk of seeding closer to 1 in 2000.

CONCLUSION

The true risk of seeding after PEG insertion is probably less than 1 in 1000.

Risk of tumor implantation in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in the upper aerodigestive tumors

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become a mainstay in providing enteral access for patients with obstructive head, neck and esophageal tumors. Tumor cell implantation is a rare complication in patients with aerodigestive cancers, who have undergone PEG tube placement. The objective of this review is to determine the incidence and contributing risk factors leading to the implantation of metastases into the abdominal wall following PEG placement. A comprehensive review of the literature in PUBMED (2008-2018) was performed. The literature search revealed reports of more than 50 cases of abdominal wall metastases after PEG placement. As most of these studies were case reports, the exact rate of metastasis remains unknown. Generally pharyngoesophageal location of primary cancer (100%), squamous cell histology (98%), poorly differentiated tumor cells (92%), advanced pathological stage (97%), and large primary cancer size were identified as strong risk factors for the development of stomal metastasis. Abdominal wall metastases following PEG placement are a rare but serious complication in patients with head and neck malignancy. (www.actabiomedica.it)

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Outcomes and Complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Versus Radiologic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding

BACKGROUND

The optimal technique for long-term enteral feeding has not yet been established. Both percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are widely used. Aim was to extensively review outcomes of PEG and PRG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed, using standardized tools for assessing bias. Main outcomes were infectious and tube-related complications, procedure related and 30-day mortality. Pooled risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using random effects. Arcsine transformations were applied.

RESULTS

In total, 344 studies were identified, of which 16 were included, reporting on 934 PEGs and 1093 PRGs. No differences were found for infectious complications [RD, 0.03 (-0.05 to 0.11)], procedure-related mortality [RD, 0.01 (-0.04 to 0.06)], or 30-day mortality [RD, 0.06 (-0.01 to 0.13)]. Tube-related complications were higher in PRG [RD, 0.16 (0.06-0.26)]. Subgroup analysis was performed for head and neck cancer (HNC) and motor neuron disease. In HNC, this revealed significantly lower tube-related complications and procedure-related mortality after PEG. In motor neuron disease, no differences were seen. The level of evidence appears sufficient considering the low degree of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found with regard to mortality or infectious complications. PEG showed lower risk of tube-related complications. Subgroup analysis revealed PEG to be favorable in HNC based on lower rates of procedure-related mortality and tube-related complications. Local experience and availability should be taken into account in the decision process.

Risk of gastric cancer following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A nationwide population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is associated with increased risk of gastric cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide population-based retrospective study in Taiwan. Inpatient data from 1997 to 2010 were collected from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients with age less than 20 years; those with histories of PEG before 2000; those with histories of cancers; and those diagnosed with gastric cancer before or within 6 months of the first PEG procedure were excluded. Finally, 3505 patients who underwent PEG were included (PEG cohort), along with 7010 randomly-selected individuals, matched by age, sex, and year of index date, as the control cohort.

RESULTS

After adjusting for age, sex, peptic ulcer, gastritis, hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease, risk of gastric cancer was significantly higher in the PEG cohort (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.31; 95% confidence interval, 4.12-6.00; p = 0.011). Patients with 2 or more PEG procedures were significantly associated with increasingly developing gastric cancer risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-3.85; p < 0.001). The possible hypothesis may be due to chronic inflammation caused by chemical and physical conditions of the tube.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PEG might be associated with a greater risk of subsequent gastric cancer in Taiwan. Physicians should be aware of the link when assessing patients with PEG.

Head and Neck Cancer Tumor Seeding at the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Site

The National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute estimates that over 13,000 new cases of head and neck cancer (HNC) will be diagnosed in 2017. Patients with HNC often require enteral nutrition (EN) via gastrostomy tube to provide nutrition support and hydration because of tumor obstruction of the oropharynx and/or cumulative effects of chemoradiation therapy. The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube has become the preferred technique for EN access because placement is considered a minimally invasive procedure. There are 3 methods of PEG placement: Gauderer-Ponsky "pull," Sachs-Vine "push," and Russell "push" method. The Gauderer-Ponsky "pull" method has become the preferred method of PEG placement. It has been previously reported that the rate of stomal metastasis can be 0.5%-1% of those undergone the Gauderer-Ponsky "pull" method that is consistent with HNC morphology. Other researchers believe the rate may be as high as 0.5%-3%. This article reviews the 3 methods of PEG placement, as well as all potential complications, including metastatic seeding at the PEG site. In addition, 1 additional case of tumor seeding at the PEG site will be reviewed. Consideration for avoidance of the Gauderer-Ponsky pull method of PEG placement or other methods of feeding tube placement where the gastrostomy tube has to pass through the oral cavity before exiting the abdominal wall in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck should be considered.

Prospective experience of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes placed by otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons: safe and efficacious

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is often the treatment of choice in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients needing long-term nutritional support. Prospective studies on PEG tube placement in an otorhinolaryngologist service are lacking. At our hospital, otolaryngologist-head and neck (ORL-HN) surgeons-have performed PEG insertions for HNC patients since 2008. We prospectively analyzed 127 consecutive HNC patients who received their PEG tubes at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery, and evaluated the outcome of PEG tube insertions performed by ORL-HN surgeons. To compare time delays before and after, PEG placement service was transferred from gastrointestinal surgeons to ORL-HN surgeons, and we retrospectively analyzed a separate group of 110 HNC patients who had earlier received PEG tubes at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery. ORL-HN surgeons' success rate in PEG insertion was 97.6%, leading to a final prospective study group of 124 patients. Major complications occurred in four (3.2%): two buried bumper syndromes, one subcutaneous hemorrhage leading to an abscess in the abdominal wall, and one metastasis at the PEG site. The most common minor complication was peristomal granulomatous tissue affecting 23 (18.5%) patients. After the change in practice, median time delay before PEG insertion decreased from 13 to 10 days (P < 0.005). The proportion of early PEG placements within 0-3 days increased from 3.6 to 14.6% (P < 0.005). PEG tube insertion seems to be a safe procedure in the hands of an ORL-HN surgeon. Independence from gastrointestinal surgeons' services reduced the time delay and improved the availability of urgent PEG insertions.

Incidence of abdominal wall metastases following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in patients with head and neck cancer

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are an effective modality for enteral nutrition in patients with head and neck cancer; however, there have been documented case reports of "seeding" of the abdominal wall by the theoretic risk of dragging the tube along the tumor during PEG placement. The objective of this study is to determine the incidence and contributing risk factors leading to metastasis to the abdominal wall following PEG placement in patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients diagnosed with head and neck malignancy who underwent PEG placement between 1/5/2009 and 12/22/2014. Variables collected included development of abdominal wall metastases, type of malignancy and tumor characteristics, smoking history, PEG placement technique, and survival following recurrence. Data were then analyzed for overall trends.

RESULTS

Out of 777 patients analyzed, a total of five patients with head and neck malignancy were identified with abdominal wall metastasis following PEG tube placement with an overall incidence of 0.64% over an average follow-up of 27.55 months. All of these patients underwent PEG tube insertion via a Pull technique. One patient was found to have a clinically evident and symptomatic stomal metastasis, while the other four patients had radiologically detected metastases either on CT or PET scan. All of the identified patients were found to have stage IV oral cancer at time of initial diagnosis of their head and neck malignancy, followed by widespread distant metastatic disease at time of presentation with their PEG site stomal metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal wall metastases following PEG placement are a rare but serious complication in patients with head and neck malignancy.

Relief of dysphagia during neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction

Dysphagia is the main symptom of cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction and causing nutritional problems and weight loss, often counteracted by insertion of self-expandable metal stents or nutrition via an enteral route. Clinical observations indicate that neoadjuvant therapy may effectively and promptly alleviate dysphagia, making such nutrition supportive interventions redundant before surgical resection. The objective of the current study was to carefully study the effects of induction neoadjuvant therapy on dysphagia and its subsequent course and thereby investigate the actual need for alimentary gateways for nutritional support. Thirty-five consecutive patients scheduled for neoadjuvant therapy were recruited and assessed regarding dysphagia and appetite at baseline, after the first cycle of preoperative treatment with either chemotherapy alone or with chemoradiotherapy and before surgery. Platinum-based therapy in combination with 5-fluorouracil was administered intravenously days 1-5 every 3 weeks and consisted of three treatments. Patients receiving combined chemoradiotherapy started radiotherapy on day one of second chemotherapy cycle. They received fractions of 2 Gy/day each up to a total dose of 40 Gy. Watson and Ogilvie dysphagia scores were used to assess dysphagia, while appetite was assessed by the Edmonton Assessment System Visual analogue scale-appetite questionnaire. Patients were evaluated at regular outpatient clinic visits or by telephone. The histological tumor response in the surgical specimen was assessed using the Chirieac scale. Ten patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 25 patients scheduled for chemoradiotherapy were included in the analysis. There was a significant improvement in dysphagia in both treatment groups, according to both scales, already from baseline to the completion of the first chemotherapy cycle which remained to the end of the neoadjuvant treatment (P < 0.001). Appetite also improved after the first chemotherapy cycle (P = 0.03). Body weight did not change during any type of neoadjuvant therapy. We were unable to demonstrate any association between relief of dysphagia and the degree of histological response to neoadjuvant therapy in the surgical specimen. The present study shows that a platin - 5FU-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with or without concomitant radiotherapy, effectively and promptly relieves dysphagia in patients presenting with cancers of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction already after the first cycle.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement by otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement by an otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeon is a feasible procedure with logistical advantages for the patient. Patient selection, co-morbidities, and the prognosis of the underlying disease are factors determining the outcome. Patient evaluation by a multidisciplinary team, with a gastroenterologist surgeon as a technical adviser, is proposed.

OBJECTIVE

PEG tube placement offers an alternative to enteral nutrition. We aimed to analyze complication rates after PEG tube placement in order to evaluate the changed management policy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of complication rates in two patient cohorts with consecutive PEG tube placement at the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (group I, n = 120) and Surgery (group II, n = 172) at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. Data were collected on the patients' age, sex, preoperative condition, tumor site and stage, preoperative laboratory parameters, coexisting medical diagnoses, indication and date for PEG tube placement, complications, time of PEG use, follow-up time, and clinical status at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

The only baseline differences between the cohorts were a higher ASA classification and fewer prophylactic PEG tubes in group II. The rate of major complications was 7.5% in group I and 13.9% in group II; in group I the rate of minor complications was 25%, compared with 15% in group II; and the procedure-related mortality rate was 0.8% in group I and 0.5% in group II. The differences were not significant (p = 0.105-0.795).