Metastasis to the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site in the patient with head and neck cancer: a case report and review of the literature

Laryngeal carcinoma experimental model suggests the possibility of tumor seeding to gastrostomy site

Some studies state that laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) is associated with possible direct tumor cell seeding to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) site. However, there is a lack of experimental proof that LSCC tumor tissue can adhere and grow in distant sites. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the growth pattern of LSCC implants on chicken embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) and evaluate possible associations between clinical course of the disease and behavior of experimentally implanted LSCC tumors. Our results show that implanted LSCC tissue survives on CAMs in 95% of cases while retaining essential morphologic characteristics and proliferative capacity of the original tumor. We identified the increased CAM vascularization, an infiltrative growth pattern of the implant and formation of distant isolated metastatic nodes on the CAMs. LSCC tumors with worse differentiation degree (G2 or G3) adhered to the experimental CAMs significantly better than G1. These results facilitate the understanding of tumor biology and allow hypothetisezing that dissemination and direct implantation of LSCC cells into the stomal wall during the pull PEG procedure might be possible.

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.

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.

Push versus pull gastrostomy in cancer patients: A single center retrospective analysis of complications and technical success rates

PURPOSE

To compare the technical success and complication rates of push versus pull gastrostomy tubes in cancer patients, and to examine their dependence on operator experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 304 cancer patients (170 men, 134 women; mean age 60.3±12.6 [SD], range: 19-102 years) referred for primary gastrostomy tube placement, 88 (29%) of whom had a previously unsuccessful attempt at percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Analyzed variables included method of insertion (push versus pull), indication for gastrostomy, technical success, operator experience, and procedure-related complications within 30 days of placement.

RESULTS

Gastrostomy tubes were placed for feeding in 189 patients and palliative decompression in 115 patients. Technical success was 91%: 78% after endoscopy had previously been unsuccessful and 97% when excluding failures associated with prior endoscopy. In the first 30 days, there were 29 minor complications (17.2%) associated with push gastrostomies, and only 8 minor complications (7.5%) with pull gastrostomies (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in major complications (push gastrostomy 5.3%, pull gastrostomy 5.6%). For decompressive gastrostomy tubes, the pull technique resulted in lower rates of both minor and major complications. There was no difference in complications or technical success rates for more versus less experienced operators.

CONCLUSION

Pull gastrostomy tube placement had a lower rate of complications than push gastrostomy tube placement, especially when the indication was decompression. The technical success rate was high, even after a failed attempt at endoscopic placement. Both the rates of success and complications were independent of operator experience.

Recurrence Due to Neoplastic Seeding in Head and Neck Cancer: Report of Two Cases and Review of the Literature

Aims and background

Tumor progression due to seeding of tumor cells after definitive treatment for squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck is an uncommon condition that can considerably worsen the outcome of patients with head and neck cancer.

Methods and study design

We report two cases of recurrence due to neoplastic seeding from oropharyngeal and oral cancer, respectively. We performed a literature review with MEDLINE as the main search engine.

Results

Seeding was found to occur most often in tracheotomy scars and gastrostomy sites. The oral cavity, hypopharynx and oropharynx were the primary sites in most cases, and advanced tumor stage seemed to be a risk factor for seeding. Treatment options include salvage surgery, which requires thorough resections, radiotherapy when possible, and palliative management. The prognosis of such events is poor.

Conclusion

Although neoplastic seeding is a well-known phenomenon in cancer surgery, many questions remain unanswered, especially regarding preventive measures and management strategies.

Evaluation of quality of life following placement of self-expanding plastic stents as a bridge to surgery in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

To determine whether self-expanding plastic stent (SEPS) placement significantly improves quality of life and maintains optimal nutrition while allowing full-dose neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with esophageal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, dual-institution, single-arm, phase II (http://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00727376) evaluation of esophageal cancer patients undergoing NAT prior to resection. All patients had a self-expanding polymer stent placed prior to NAT. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anorexia, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General surveys were administered prior to stenting, within 1 week post-stent placement, and at the completion of neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were enrolled; 3 (5.8%) had stent migrations requiring replacement. There were no instances of esophageal erosion or perforation. All patients received some form of neoadjuvant therapy. Thirty-six (69%) received chemoradiation; 34 (93%) of these patients received the planned dose of chemotherapy, and 27 (75%) received the full planned dose of radiotherapy. There were 16 (31%) patients receiving chemotherapy alone; 12 (74%) of patients in the chemotherapy-alone group completed the planned dose of therapy.

CONCLUSION

Placement of SEPS appears to provide significant improvement in quality of life related to dysphagia and eating restriction in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. Consideration of SEPS instead of percutaneous feeding tube should be initiated as a first line in dysphagia palliation and NAT nutritional support.

Gastric metastases of oral carcinoma resulting from percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement via the introducer technique

INTRODUCTION. Tumour cell implantation is a rare complication in patients with head and neck cancers, who have undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. It has not been reported in patients who underwent a PEG insertion via the radiological or introducer technique. We describe a novel case presentation of metastatic disease in a patient who underwent PEG placement via the introducer (Russell) technique which, to the best of our knowledge, has not not previously been described. CASE PRESENTATION. The patient was a 37-year-old Malay woman who developed metastatic squamous cell carcinoma deposits in her stomach and liver one month after a gastrostomy tube was removed following the completion of treatment for oropharyngeal carcinoma. CONCLUSION. Previous authors have advocated the use of alternative PEG insertion technique apart from the 'pull' technique to minimise the risk of tumour implantation from head and neck cancers. Our case report suggests that this risk is not totally eliminated when the PEG tube is inserted via the introducer technique.

Disc-retained tubes for radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG): not up to the job?

AIM

To assess the insertion procedure and performance of disc-retained gastrostomy tubes, recording complications and accidental displacements by prospective audit, and to determine whether primary placement of the tube off-licence was feasible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Disc-retained 12 F single-lumen Monarch gastrostomy tubes (Enteral UK, Selby, UK) were inserted by three gastrointestinal interventional radiologists in a supra-regional cancer centre. The 12 F tubes required a 20 F peel-away sheath with four-point gastropexy fixation and were placed under conscious sedation, using electrocardiogram (EEG) bispectral index monitoring. Follow-up was performed in an in-house gastrostomy drop-in clinic at 1 week and 1 month, supplemented with weekly telephone follow-up. Patients also had open access to the gastrostomy drop-in clinic for immediate advice and complication management.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients underwent primary insertion of a Monarch gastrostomy tube over 5 months. A total of 6/18 (33%) tubes displaced; 4/18 (22%) completely, 2/18 (11%) occult into the peritoneum. Four of 18 (22%) patients developed infection at the stoma site. Due to the unexpectedly poor performance of the tube, the study was terminated early.

CONCLUSION

Initial experience with the Monarch disc-retained gastrostomy tube demonstrates it unsuitable for primary placement with current protocols. In view of the potentially serious complications, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been informed. A request has been made to the distributer to reassess the tube design and/or review the procedure promoted for primary placement.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site metastasis from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: case series and literature review

Objectives

To present our experience with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) seeding of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) sites and to review all reported cases to identify risk factors and develop strategies for complication avoidance.

Materials and methods

The records of 4 patients with PEG site metastasis from HNSCC were identified from the authors’ institution. Thirty-eight further cases were reviewed following a PubMed search and evaluation of references in pertinent articles.

Results

Review of 42 cases revealed the average time from PEG to diagnosis of metastatic disease to be 8 months. Average time to death from detection of PEG disease was 5.9 months. One-year survival following PEG metastasis was 35.5% with an overall mortality of 87.1%.

Conclusion

PEG site metastatic disease portends a poor prognosis. Early detection and aggressive therapy may provide a chance of cure. Changes in PEG technique or in timing of adjunctive therapies are possible avenues in further research to prevent this complication.

Metastasis of untreated head and neck cancer to percutaneous gastrostomy tube exit sites

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become a mainstay in providing enteral access for patients with obstructive head and neck tumors. PEG tube placement is considered safe and complications are infrequent.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature in MEDLINE (1962-2011) was performed. We report herein 3 new cases.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 43 previous cases. The interval between PEG placement and diagnosis of metastasis ranged from 1 to 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Metastatic cancer should be considered in patients with head and neck cancer that have persistent, unexplained skin changes at PEG site, anemia, or guaiac positive stools without a clear etiology. The direct implantation of tumor cells through instrumentation is the most likely explanation, although hematogenous and/or lymphatic seeding is also a possibility. Our review of the literature and clinical experience indicate that the "pull" technique of PEG placement may directly implant tumor cells at the gastrostomy site.

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.

Prophylactic PEG placement in head and neck cancer: How many feeding tubes are unused (and unnecessary)?

AIM: To determine the rate of use and non-use of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

METHODS: All patients with HNC undergoing PEG between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were identified. Patients (or their next-of-kin) were surveyed by phone and all available medical records and cancer registry data were reviewed. Prophylactic PEG was defined as placement in the absence of dysphagia and prior to radiation or chemoradiation. Each patient with a prophylactic PEG was assessed for cancer diagnosis, type of therapy, PEG use, and complications related to PEG.

RESULTS: One hundred and three patients had PEG tubes placed for HNC. Thirty four patients (33%) could not be contacted for follow-up. Of the 23 (22.3%) patients with prophylactic PEG tubes, 11/23 (47.8%) either never used the PEG or used it for less than 2 wk. No association with PEG use vs non-use was observed for cancer diagnosis, stage, or specific cancer treatment. Non-use or limited use was observed in 3/6 (50%) treated with radiation alone vs 8/17 (47.1%) treated with chemoradiation (P = 1.0), and 3 of 10 (30%) treated with surgery vs 8 of 13 (62%) not treated with surgery (P = 0.21). Minor complications were reported in 5/23 (21.7%). One (4.3%) major complication was reported.

CONCLUSION: There is a high rate of unnecessary PEG placement when done prophylactically in patients with head and neck cancer.

Complications following gastrostomy tube insertion in patients with head and neck cancer: a prospective multi-institution study, systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To measure morbidity and mortality rates following insertion of gastrostomy tubes in head and neck cancer patients. To determine evidence for any relationship between gastrostomy insertion technique and complication rates.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study and qualitative systematic review.

SETTING

Multi-cancer networks in the South West of England, Hampshire and the Isle of White.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and seventy-two patients with head and neck cancer undergoing gastrostomy tube insertion between 2004 and 2005. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was performed in 121 patients. Fifty-one patients had radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG). Twenty-seven studies reporting outcomes following 2353 gastrostomy procedures for head and neck cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Post-procedure mortality, major and minor complications.

RESULTS

In the present series, mortality rates were 1.0% (1/121) for PEG and 3.9% (2/51) for RIG. Overall major complication rates following PEG and RIG were 3.3% (4/121) and 15.6% (9/51) respectively. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of 2379 head and neck cancer patients, we observed fatality rates of 2.2% (95% CI 0.014-0.034) following PEG and 1.8% (95% CI 0.010-0.032) following RIG. Furthermore, major complication rates following PEG were 7.4% (95% CI 5.9-9.3%) and 8.9% (95% CI 7.0-11.2%) after RIG.

CONCLUSIONS

Procedure related mortality rates following gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients are higher than those in mixed patient populations. Major complication rates following RIG in head and neck cancer patients are greater than those following PEG. Major complications following PEG in patients with head and neck cancer appear no worse than in mixed pathology groups. We have identified that RIG is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients who are ineligible for PEG. The serious nature of the complications associated with gastrostomy particularly in patients with head and neck cancer requires careful consideration by the referring physician.

An audit of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer: reducing the incidence of peri-operative airway events by the introduction of a tumour assessment protocol

INTRODUCTION

The presence of a malignancy of the upper aerodigestive tract introduces the potential for iatrogenic complications additional to those usually associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Specifically, seeding of tumour from the upper aerodigestive tract creating abdominal wall metastases, and airway obstruction due to tumour directly occluding the airway when a patient is sedated for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We report an audit of our experience of gastrostomy placement for patients under going treatment for head and neck cancer in our institution from September 2003 to October 2006.

RESULTS

Of 33 patients who had percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion under sedation in the first cycle of the audit, two (6%) experienced major airway complications resulting in one fatality. A tumour assessment protocol was introduced. In the second cycle, 96 patients had percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies, of whom 16 (13%) underwent gastrostomy insertion under general anaesthetic and five (4.5%) under radiological guidance. No patients had airway complications or abdominal wall metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

A formal tumour assessment protocol eliminated airway obstruction as a complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion and may reduce the potential for abdominal wall metastases at the gastrostomy site when using the pull technique.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site metastasis

Metastases to gastrostomy sites are a rare but significant complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy (PEG) placement in cancer patients. Both direct seeding and hematogenous spread have been suggested as possible mechanisms. This article outlines the incidence, presentation, pathogenesis, and management of PEG-site metastases.