Risk factors and risk reduction of malignant seeding of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy track from pharyngoesophageal malignancy: a review of all 44 known reported cases

Endoscopic Nutrition of Patients with Cancer

The types of endoscopic interventions available for supporting the nutrition of patients with cancer have expanded in recent years to encompass a wide variety of different techniques and procedures. Many of these procedures reflect refinements of technique that have existed for some time, whereas others are implementations of novel technologies and instruments that have only become available in recent years. In this review, the authors seek to summarize the breadth of endoscopic techniques for maintaining nutrition in patients with cancer.

Effect of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy prior to oesophageal cancer surgery on postoperative wound complications in patients: A meta-analysis

It is still a matter of controversy whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy(PEG) should be used prior to the operation for the purpose of feeding the patient with resectable oesophageal carcinoma (EC). Comparison was made between EC and preoperatively treated PEG and non-preoperative PEG. An extensive literature review has been conducted to determine the results about PEG and No-PEG trials. In this paper, we chose 4 papers out of 407 of them through a strict selection process. In this trial, there were 1027 surgical cases of oesophagus carcinoma, 152 with PEG pre-surgery and 875 without PEG. The total sample size ranged from 14 to 657. Two studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative wound infection among PEG and No-PEG(OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.38, 2.80 p = 0.96), there was no statistical significance in the likelihood of anastomotic leak among PEG after surgery compared to No-PEG in 4 trials (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.62-2.07 p = 0.69), and there were no statistical differences between PEG and No-PEG before operation on anastomotic stricture for esophagectomy(OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31-1.56 p = 0.38). No wound or anastomosis complications were observed in the PEG group. Thus, PEG preoperatively is an effective and safe procedure without any harmful influence on gastrointestinal structure or anastomosing. It can be applied to patients with oesophagus carcinoma who have a high risk of undernutrition. Nevertheless, because of the limited number of randomized controlled trials in this meta-analysis, caution should be exercised in their treatment. More high-quality research involving a large sample is required to confirm the findings.

Tongue squamous cell carcinoma metastasis to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site: A case report of an unusual cause of gastrointestinal bleeding

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes are often placed in patients with head and neck malignancy for long-term nutritional support. Though rare, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma can metastasize to the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube site and may initially present as a developing mass or as bleeding at the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site. Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma should be evaluated diligently before and after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in order to avoid this rare but life-threatening complication. We present a case of tongue squamous cell carcinoma that metastasized to the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube site causing gastrointestinal bleeding.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for nutritional support in patients with aerodigestive tract cancers

BACKGROUND

Conventional pull-through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) risks infection and tumour implantation in head and neck cancers. Endoscopically inserted direct gastrostomy has lower rates of complications but is underutilised.

AIMS

To describe the endoscopic steps for direct gastrostomy insertion and review our single-centre experience to assess the technical feasibility and safety.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic direct gastrostomy insertion between December 2016 and June 2021 were included. A 24Fr introducer kit for gastrostomy feeding tube (Avanos Healthcare, Australia) was used. Patient and tumour characteristics, procedural data and 30-day outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent direct PEG insertion (mean age 64 years and 24 male). All were planned for or currently undergoing radiotherapy. Twenty-six (87%) of 30 cases were performed under conscious sedation over a median procedure time of 21 min (interquartile range 11 min). No tumour seeding was seen, and one case of PEG-site infection was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct PEG is safe and effective and should be considered for patients with aerodigestive tract cancer in need of nutritional support.

Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Versus Radiological Gastrostomy in Patients Unable to Undergo Transoral Endoscopic Pull Gastrostomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A subset of patients needing long-term enteral access are unable to undergo a conventional transoral "pull" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). We assessed the safety and efficacy of an introducer-style endoscopic direct PEG (DPEG) and an interventional radiologist guided gastrostomy (IRG) among patients unable to undergo a pull PEG.

METHODS

In this single center, non-randomized, pilot study, patients unable to undergo a transoral Pull PEG were prospectively recruited for a DPEG during the index endoscopy. IRG procedures performed at our center served as the comparison group. The primary outcome was technical success and secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality, procedure duration, dosage of medications, adverse events, and 30-day all-cause hospitalization. The Charlson comorbidity index was used to compare comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (68.3 ± 7.13 years) underwent DPEG and 45 patients (68.6 ± 8.23 years) underwent IRG. The respective Charlson comorbidity scores were 6.37 ± 2 and 6.16 ± 1.72 (P = 0.59). Malignancies of the upper aerodigestive tract were the most common indications for DPEG and IRG (42 vs. 37; P = 0.38). The outcomes for DPEG and IRG were as follows: technical success: 96 vs. 98%; P = 1; 30-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs 15%, P < 0.01; 90-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs. 31%, P < 0.001; 30-day hospitalization: 19 vs. 38%; P = 0.06; procedure duration: 23.8 ± 1.39 vs. 29.5 ± 2.03 min, P = 0.02; midazolam dose: 4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 1.23 ± 0.6 mg; P < 0.001, and opiate dose: 105.6 ± 38.2 vs. 70.7 ± 34.5 µg, P < 0.001, respectively. Perforation of the colon during IRG was the sole serious adverse event.

CONCLUSION

DPEG is a safe and effective alternative to IRG in patients unable to undergo a conventional transoral pull PEG and may be considered as a primary modality for enteral support.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT04151030.

Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices

Gastrostomy tube placement is a procedure that achieves enteral access for nutrition, decompression, and medication administration. Preprocedural evaluation and selection of patients is necessary to provide optimal benefit and reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). Appropriate indications, contraindications, ethical considerations, and comorbidities of patients referred for gastrostomy placement should be weighed and balanced. Additionally, endoscopist should consider either a transoral or transabdominal approach is appropriate, and radiologic or surgical gastrostomy tube placement is needed. However, medical history, physical examination, and imaging prior to the procedure should be considered to tailor the appropriate approach and reduce the risk of AEs.

Comparison of Pull and Introducer Techniques for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

Objective

To compare indications, success rates and complications of pull [P] and introducer [I] techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

Methods

In this retrospective study, inpatients who underwent primary PEG tube insertion between January 2015 and February 2020 at the Endoscopy Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University were included.

Results

A total of 103 inpatients were included in this study (P group, n = 67; I group, n = 36). The rates of tube replacement within first six months in the P and I groups were 1.5% and 11.1%, respectively (P = 0.049). The most common primary indication of PEG was malignancy. The proportion of patients with esophageal cancer was significantly lower in the P group (24.4% vs 54.2%, P = 0.015). No significant difference was found in the overall, major, or minor complications between the two groups. In patients with esophageal stenosis, the pull method was a risk factor for complications (P = 0.03; odds ratio [OR] = 12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.164–123.684). Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for major and minor complications were the admission-to-gastrostomy interval (OR = 1.078, 95% CI: 1.016–1.145, P = 0.014) and lack of antibiotic use (OR = 4.735, 95% CI: 1.247–17.979, P = 0.022), respectively.

Conclusion

Both PEG techniques have high clinical success rates. The introducer technique is more suitable for patients with esophageal stricture, which has lower minor complications, but higher rate of tube replacement compared to the pull technique. Use of antibiotics may reduce minor complications following PEG. Early PEG insertion may help to reduce post-PEG major complications.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy prior to esophagectomy for esophageal cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For resectable esophageal cancer (EC), it remains controversial whether to place percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) before the curative surgery to provide nutritional support during the neoadjuvant therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical outcomes for patients who received preoperative PEG and those without PEG placement (No-PEG) insertion prior to surgery in a potentially operable EC.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify randomized and non-randomized studies comparing PEG and No-PEG groups.

RESULTS

Four retrospective studies with a total number of 1,027 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The differences in anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, pulmonary complications, wound infection, and hospital stay were not statistically significant between the two groups. Operation time was significantly shorter in the PEG group. There was no PEG-related gastric conduit failure and no leak from the PEG site in the PEG group.

CONCLUSION

We conclude preoperative PEG for resectable EC is a safe procedure with no adverse effect on the gastric tube construction and anastomosis, it can be selectively inserted for EC patients with marked weight loss and malnutrition or those at risk of developing malnutrition during neoadjuvant therapy.

Comparative Safety of Endoscopic vs Radiological Gastrostomy Tube Placement: Outcomes From a Large, Nationwide Veterans Affairs Database

INTRODUCTION

A gastrostomy is generally performed in patients who are unable to maintain volitional intake of food. We compared outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and interventional radiologist-guided gastrostomy (IRG) using an integrated nationwide database.

METHODS

Using the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, patients who underwent PEG or IRG from 2011 through 2021 were selected using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. The primary outcome was the comparative incidence of adverse events between PEG and IRG. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality. Comorbidities were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes, and adjusted odds ratio (OR) for adverse events were calculated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 23,566 (70.7 ± 10.2 years) patients underwent PEG and 9,715 (69.6 ± 9.7 years) underwent IRG. Selected frequent indications for PEG vs IRG were as follows: stroke, 6.8% vs 5.3%, P < 0.01; aspiration pneumonia, 10.9% vs 6.8%, P < 0.001; feeding difficulties, 9.8% vs 6.3%, P < 0.01; and upper aerodigestive tract malignancies 58.8% vs 79.8%, P < 0.01. Across all subtypes of malignancies of the head and neck and foregut, the proportion of patients undergoing IRG was greater than those undergoing PEG (P < 0.001). The all-cause 30-day mortality and overall incidence of adverse events were significantly lower for PEG compared with those for IRG (PEG vs IRG): all-cause 30-day mortality, 9.35% vs 10.3% (OR 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.87; P < 0.01); perforation of the colon, 0.12% vs 0.24% (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = 0.04); peritonitis, 1.9% vs 2.7% (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58-0.79; P < 0.01); and hemorrhage 1.6% vs 1% (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.18-1.83; P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

In a large nationwide database of more than 33,000 gastrostomy procedures, PEG was associated with a lower incidence of adverse outcomes and the 30-day mortality than IRG.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

METHODS

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

Prevention and management of major complications in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a commonly used endoscopic technique where a tube is placed through the abdominal wall mainly to administer fluids, drugs and/or enteral nutrition. Several placement techniques are described in the literature with the ‘pull’ technique (Ponsky-Gardener) as the most popular one. Independent of the method used, placement includes a ‘blind’ perforation of the stomach through a small acute surgical abdominal wound. It is a generally safe technique with only few major complications. Nevertheless these complications can be sometimes life-threatening or generate serious morbidity.

Method

A narrative review of the literature of major complications in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Results

This review was written from a clinical viewpoint focusing on prevention and management of major complications and documented scientific evidence with real cases from more than 20 years of clinical practice.

Conclusions

Major complications are rare but prevention, early recognition and popper management are important.

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.

Non-radical primary diagnostic biopsies affect survival in cutaneous head and neck melanoma

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if a non-radical diagnostic biopsy entails a higher risk for metastasis and poorer survival for patients with cutaneous head and neck melanoma (cHNM).

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

To assess whether or not initial diagnostic biopsy modality and radicality (clear, positive, or narrow histopathological margins) influence recurrence and survival in patients with cHNM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Histopathological radicality of initial diagnostic biopsies and outcome for 368 consecutive cHNM patients, clinically asymptomatic of metastatic disease and referred to a tertiary care academic center for sentinel lymph node staging from 2004 through 2018, were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with positive (n = 133) or narrow (0.1-0.5 mm) (n = 34) histopathological margins had significantly worse loco-regional (p=.004) and distant control (p=.004) as well as lower overall (p=.017) and melanoma specific (p=.0002) survival than 201 patients with clear margins. Multivariate analysis indicated positive or narrow histopathological margins as independent negative prognostic factors for melanoma specific survival (HR 2.16, p=.015), together with deeper Breslow (HR 1.17, p=.00001) and ulceration (HR 2.49, p=.003).

CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE

Non-radical primary diagnostic biopsies increase the risk for metastatic disease and impair survival in cHNM. Accordingly, radical melanoma diagnostic procedures should be encouraged in the head and neck region when possible.

PEG site metastasis in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma managed with cetuximab and radiotherapy: A case report

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion is commonplace in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. A rare but serious complication of PEG insertion in HNC is PEG site metastasis (PSM), which may precipitate rapid deterioration. We present the first case of PSM in a HNC patient managed without chemoradiotherapy and/or surgery, but rather with concurrent radiotherapy and cetuximab, followed by second-line pembrolizumab. Following histopathologic diagnosis of PSM, positron emission tomography confirmed primary site recurrence and multiple metastases in the axilla, abdomen and pelvis, managed palliatively with focal abdominal wall radiotherapy, pembrolizumab and carboplatin. The patient deteriorated and passed away 20 months after initial HNC diagnosis, 5 months after confirmation of PSM. Patients and clinicians should be aware of PSM in HNC. Though a proven prevention strategy is yet to be confirmed, prompt PSM diagnosis spares the patient unnecessary antibiotics for presumed infection and suggests the possibility of intra-abdominal metastases.

Seeding of Gastrostomy Tube Site in Patient With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Tongue: A Case Report

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a widely used therapeutic tool to provide nutrition support for patients with various clinical conditions, including different types of cancer. Head and neck cancers, often complicated by dysphagia, are among leading indications for enteral feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ) tubes are typically used to deliver EN. This article presents a case report of a young male with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Unfortunately, he developed metastasis of his cancer at the right lateral side of the PEG placement site, requiring surgical resection of seeded growth at the PEG site. This rare complication can be challenging, as it requires a high index of suspicion to diagnose and can potentially limit nutrition support options. A number of theories have been proposed to explain seeding during PEG/PEJ placement, including direct repositioning of malignant cells during instrumentation. A specific placement technique has not been shown to be superior, as seeding was reported with all placement techniques. However, given the lack of statistically powerful studies to describe this entity, there are still gaps we need to explore to better understand seeding of feeding tubes and best practices around diagnosis and early treatment. EN continues to be an important part of caring for patients with cancer during active or palliative treatments. Understanding potential risks in the setting of cancer metastasis is beneficial to the patients and multidisciplinary teams involved. Early recognition of possible seeding of feeding tube sites is necessary to ensure subsequent timely surgical intervention.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor metastasis at the site of a totally implantable venous access port insertion: A rare case report

BACKGROUND

The totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) is an important device in patients for injecting blood products, parenteral nutrition or antineoplastic chemotherapy. Metastatic spread at the site of the insertion of a TIVAP is extremely rare.

CASE SUMMARY

We report the case of 33-year-old male with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who underwent radical tumor resection after neoadjuvant imatinib therapy. However, a solitary GIST metastasis at the site of a TIVAP insertion developed during adjuvant imatinib treatment. Mutational analysis showed secondary mutation in KIT exon 13 (V564A), which is resistant to imatinib treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first case report of a patient with advanced GIST developing GIST metastasis at the site of a TIVAP insertion.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights that when a patient with advanced, high metastatic GIST requires TIVAP insertion, we should realize that there is a risk of developing tumor metastasis at the site of a TIVAP insertion.

Rare Abdominal Wall Metastasis following Curative Resection of Gastric Cancer: What Can Be Learned from the Use of Percutaneous Catheters?

In cancer care, tissue seeding after curative resections is a known potential complication, despite precautions taken during surgical treatment. We present an uncommon case of an abdominal wall metastasis along the tract of a surgical drain following gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. To our knowledge, this is the first case of such an occurrence in the setting of a negative staging peritoneal lavage. Aside from the rarity of such a recurrence, this instance highlights an opportunity to reevaluate best practices with regard to the extent of coverage of postoperative salvage radiotherapy. The oncologic patient provides many challenges and may require multiple catheters for drainage and at times infusion of nutrition or therapeutic agents. These foreign bodies should be scrutinized both clinically and radiographically, as they may create vulnerabilities in keeping malignant diseases contained and controlled. We provide a review of the literature with reasonable treatment options for the benefit of future patients.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Surgical Gastrostomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Introducer Technique in Patients with Upper Aerodigestive Malignancies: A Single-Center Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies inevitably carries a risk of stomal metastasis that could be avoided by the direct insertion of the gastrostomy tube through the abdomen. This study compared the efficacy and safety between surgical gastrostomy (SG) and Introducer PEG in patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies undergoing SG or Introducer PEG. Procedure data, postprocedural clinical outcomes and 30-day mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 99 patients were feasible to analysis: 53 were in the SG group, and 46 were in the Introducer PEG group. The SG group had a higher incidence of (in-hospital) major complications [28.3% VS 4.3%, p = 0.002], a longer procedure duration [52.02 ± 21.30 VS 21.46 ± 8.22 min, p < 0.001], higher pain scores at 24 h [median (interquartile range, IQR); 5(3-8) VS 1(0-5), p < 0.001] and longer length of hospitalization (LOH) [median (IQR); 5(4-6) days VS 3(2-4) days, p < 0.001)]. In-hospital (3.8% VS 0%, p = 0.493) and 30-day mortality (17.0% VS 13.0%, p = 0.586) were not different between the two groups. In univariate analysis, high BMI, anemia (hemoglobin <11 g/dL), normal nutritional status (serum albumin >3 g/dL) and procedural type were found to be predicting factors for complications. Procedural type (Introducer PEG) was an independent factor for major complications in multivariate analysis [OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.61, p= 0.011].

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies, Introducer PEG was associated with lower rate of (in-hospital) major complications, faster operative time, lower pain scores and shorter LOH.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER

TCTR20181220004.

Gastrostomy in Patients with Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Comparative Study Between the Laparoscopy-Assisted Introducer Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Versus Open Gastrostomy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Straightened nutritional status plays a vital role in the treatment outcome of advanced esophageal cancer. Both introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and open gastrostomy are safe options with avoidance risk of cancer cell seeding. The introducer PEG is an effective minimally invasive procedure with few complications, but the procedural method faces limitations for patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery. This study set out to compare the results of laparoscopy-assisted introducer PEG (LAIPEG) with open gastrostomy in advanced esophageal cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery. The advanced esophageal cancer patients who had previous abdominal surgery and indicated an enteral feeding tube between January 2014 and September 2019, were respectively analyzed. The open gastrostomy group was 35 patients, and the LAIPEG group was 18 patients. Operative duration, blood loss, postoperative pain score, and hospitalization time were significantly less in the LAIPEG group. Related procedural complications occurred only in the open gastrostomy group. Both groups are discharged from the hospital without readmission or 30-day mortality. Both procedures are safe options for advanced esophageal cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery for enteral feeding nutrition while minimizing the risk of cancer seeding. The LAIPEG demonstrated an effective minimally invasive procedure, which is safe with fewer complications. Previous surgery of the left supramesocolic area may be legitimate concerns before choosing introducer PEG for esophageal cancer with a history of prior surgery.

Nutritional Support of Cancer Patients without Oral Feeding: How to Select the Most Effective Technique?

BACKGROUND

Digestive tumours are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Many cancer patients cannot maintain oral feeding and develop malnutrition. The authors aim to: review the endoscopic, radiologic and surgical techniques for nutritional support in cancer patients; address the strategies for nutritional intervention according to the selected technique; and establish a decision-making algorithm to define the best approach in a specific tumour setting.

SUMMARY

This is a narrative non-systematic review based on an electronic search through the medical literature using PubMed and UpToDate. The impossibility of maintaining oral feeding is a major cause of malnutrition in head and neck (H&N) cancer, oesophageal tumours and malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Tube feeding, endoscopic stents and gastrojejunostomy are the three main nutritional options. Nasal tubes are indicated for short-term enteral feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the gold standard when enteral nutrition is expected for more than 3-4 weeks, especially in H&N tumour and oesophageal cancer patients undergoing definite chemoradiotherapy. A gastropexy push system may be considered to avoid cancer seeding. Radiologic and surgical gastrostomy are alternatives when an endoscopic approach is not feasible. Postpyloric nutrition is indicated for patients intolerant to gastric feeding and may be achieved through nasoenteric tubes, PEG with jejunal extension, percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and surgical jejunostomy. Oesophageal and enteric stents are palliative techniques that allow oral feeding and improve quality of life. Surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy is recommended when enteric stents fail or prolonged survival is expected. Nutritional intervention is dependent on the technique chosen. Institutional protocols and decision algorithms should be developed on a multidisciplinary basis to optimize nutritional care.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists play a central role in the nutritional support of cancer patients performing endoscopic techniques that maintain oral or enteral feeding. The selection of the most effective technique must consider the cancer type, the oncologic therapeutic program, nutritional aims and expected patient survival.

Survival benefits from concomitant chemoradiotherapy before radical surgery in stage IVA sinonasal mucosal melanoma?

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to review a local treatment protocol for sinonasal mucosal melanoma (SNMM) focusing on triple modality treatment (TMT), that is, neoadjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery.

METHODS

In a retrospective design, data on clinical presentation, treatment, and survival were retrieved for 22 consecutive patients from a tertiary referral center.

RESULTS

The mean overall survival (OS) for all patients (3 stage III, 16 stage IVA, and 3 stage IVB) was 62 months, and the 5-year OS rate 50%. Four of the 22 patients received treatment with palliative intention. Of the 18 patients who received treatment with curative intention, patients with stage IVA disease who received TMT (n = 10) had a 5-year OS of 70% and 10-year OS of 20%. The median disease-free survival for these patients was 51 months compared with 9 months for stage IVA not receiving TMT (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

A seemingly favorable survival outcome for a disease with characteristically poor prognosis was observed. The lead finding was a high survival rate (70% 5-year OS) for stage IVA patients who received neoadjuvant TMT. The observations suggest the possibility that patients with advanced SNMM (stage IVA) might benefit from concomitant CRT before surgery by delaying the onset of local recurrences and distant metastases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, case series (with or without comparison).

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.

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)

Enteral nutrition in esophageal cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a Chinese expert consensus 2018

Esophageal cancer (EC) patients receiving radiotherapy are at a high risk of malnutrition, which can increase the side effects of radiotherapy, reduce the accuracy and sensitivity of radiotherapy and decrease treatment effect. Therefore, timely and correct nutritional treatment is crucial. To date, however, neither consensus nor guidelines on enteral nutrition (EN) specifically for EC patients receiving radiotherapy exist. Accordingly, an expert consensus conference was held to establish consensus on the use of EN in EC patients receiving radiotherapy. It reflected the opinions of a multidisciplinary group of experts and a review of the current literature, and established common guidelines for nutritional screening and assessment, nutrition counseling, indication for EN, access and formulas of EN, effect evaluation, nutrition plan adjustment, and home enteral nutrition.

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.

Glove and instrument changing to prevent tumour seeding in cancer surgery: a survey of surgeons' beliefs and practices

Background

Some surgeons change gloves and instruments after the extirpative phase of cancer surgery with the intent of reducing the risk of local and wound recurrence. Although this practice is conceptually appealing, the evidence that gloves or instruments act as vectors of cancer-cell seeding in the clinical setting is weak. To determine the potential effect of further investigation of this question, we surveyed the practices and beliefs of a broad spectrum of surgeons who operate on cancer patients.

Methods

Using a modified Dillman approach, a survey was mailed to all 945 general surgeons listed in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario public registry. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and free-text response questions. Responses were tabulated and grouped into themes, including specific intraoperative events and surgeon training. Predictive variables were analyzed by chi-square test.

Results

Of 459 surveys returned (adjusted response rate: 46%), 351 met the inclusion criteria for retention. Of those respondents, 52% reported that they change gloves during cancer resections with the intent of decreasing the risk of tumour seeding, and 40%, that they change instruments for that purpose. The proportion of respondents indicating that they take measures to protect the wound was 73% for laparoscopic cancer resections and 31% for open resections. Training and years in practice predicted some of the foregoing behaviours. The most commonly cited basis for adopting specific strategies to prevent tumour seeding was "gut feeling," followed by clinical training. Most respondents believe that it is possible or probable that surgical gloves or instruments harbour malignant cells, but that a cancer recurrence proceeding from that situation is unlikely.

Conclusions

There is no consensus on how gloves and instruments should be handled in cancer operations. Further investigation is warranted.

Synchronous gastric and duodenal metastases from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a unique presentation of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Metastatic disease to the stomach or duodenum is an infrequent diagnosis, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is one of the least common primary malignancies that lead to gastric or duodenal metastases. We report the case of a 65-year-old man with human immunodeficiency virus infection and previously diagnosed HNSCC who presented with melena. The patient had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placed 3 months prior to his presentation. Laboratory testing was significant for normocytic anemia and a digital rectal examination was positive for melena. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed numerous cratered nodules with contact bleeding in the stomach as well as the duodenum that appeared malignant. Biopsies of the gastric and duodenal nodules were positive for p40 and CK 5/6, consistent with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma.

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.

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.

Usage characteristics and adverse event rates ​of the direct puncture and pull techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with malignant tumors of the upper aerodigestive tract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Patients with malignant tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract are at risk of weight loss. Early supportive nutrition therapy is therefore recommended and usually requires placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The aim of this study was to compare adverse events and usage characteristics of the direct puncture technique with those of the traditional pull technique when used in patients with endoscopically passable tumors. The primary endpoint was the rate of inflammatory adverse events (AEs) at the gastrostomy fistula. The secondary endpoint was the long-term rate of puncture-site metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 One hundred twenty patients (median age 56; IQR 36, 86 years) were randomized and treated per protocol in this prospective open randomized single-center study. Follow-ups were conducted on the third and seventh post-interventional days, after 1, 3 and 6 months and the last follow-up 5 years after intervention.

RESULTS

 Within the short-term follow-up period of 6 months after PEG placement, AEs were noted in 47 patients (39.2 %). These included 22 inflammations and 16 device dislocations and were mainly found in the puncture group (33 vs. 14 in the pull group) with a significantly increased incidence in the first month after PEG insertion ( P  = 0.001). Evaluation of the 5-year data did not reveal any significant differences. The gastrostomy tube was used in 101 patients (84.2 %) (range 18 days to 5 years).

CONCLUSIONS

 Our results favor the pull technique for patients with endoscopically passable tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract due to less short-term adverse events. Both systems contributed equally to secure long-term use.

Metastatic spread from squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx to the totally implantable venous access port insertion site: Case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

The totally implantable venous access port plays a crucial role in delivering chemotherapy in the outpatient setting. Here, we report the first case of a patient with hypopharyngeal tumor who developed chest wall metastasis over the totally implantable venous access port inserted in the internal jugular vein.

METHODS

Our patient, a 58-year-old man with a hypopharyngeal tumor presented with a lump over the totally implantable venous access port site. The port was removed and the lump was biopsied. The CT studies showed that the tumor had spread along the catheter from the hypopharynx to the chest wall.

RESULTS

The pathology from the biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The patient had poor performance status and opted for hospice care.

CONCLUSION

We present a novel case of metastasis over the totally implantable venous access port implanted in a patient with a hypopharyngeal tumor. We also reviewed relevant literature comparing the data from percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube site metastasis with our patient and other similar case reports.

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.

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Radiologic Pigtail-Retained Gastrostomy and Radiologic Mushroom-Retained Gastrostomy

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare 2 different types of percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy procedures (pigtail-retained gastrostomy [PG] vs mushroom-retained gastrostomy [MG]).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2014 and February 2016, 100 patients were randomly assigned to receive 14-F PG or 20-F MG. Block randomization (block size 4) was performed, and sample size was calculated to assess the difference in minor complications. One patient withdrew from the study after allocation. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups (P > .05). Technical success, defined as successful placement of gastrostomy tube, and procedural complications were evaluated. Procedural complications were divided into major and minor complications according to the Society of Interventional Radiology criteria.

RESULTS

Technical success rate was 100%. In the PG group, the major complication rate was 2% (1 of 50); 1 patient had a misplaced PG in the peritoneal cavity between the gastric and abdominal walls and developed peritonitis that had to be surgically treated. The minor complication rate was 34% (17 of 50) in the PG group. In the MG group, the major complication rate was 0%, and the minor complication rate was 12.2% (6 of 49). The most common minor complication was tube occlusion. Minor complication rate was significantly higher in the PG group (P = .016). Mean fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the MG group (P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PG and MG demonstrated high technical success rates in all indications. MG had lower complication rates than PG at the cost of an increase in fluoroscopy times.

Self-Expanding Metal Stents Improve Swallowing and Maintain Nutrition During Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer can have significant dysphagia. Nutritional support during neoadjuvant therapy is often delivered via nasoenteric or percutaneous feeding tubes. These approaches do not allow for per-oral feeding.

AIMS

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of fully covered self-expanding metal esophageal stents for nutritional support during neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

This was a pilot, prospective study at a single tertiary center. From March 2012 to May 2013, consecutive patients with esophageal cancer eligible for neoadjuvant therapy were enrolled. Metal stents were placed prior to starting neoadjuvant therapy. Data were collected at baseline and predetermined intervals until an endpoint (surgery or disease progression). Outcomes included dysphagia grade, satisfaction of swallowing score, nutritional status (weight, serum albumin), impact on surgery, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fourteen stents were placed in 12 patients (59.1 ± 9.5 years, 11 men, 1 woman). Dysphagia grade (pre 3.4 ± 0.5 vs post 0.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.0001) and swallowing scores (20.2 ± 5.9 vs 6.3 ± 4.7, p < 0.0001) significantly improved after stent placement. Improvements were sustained throughout neoadjuvant therapy. Body weight and serum albumin levels remained stable. Adverse events included severe chest pain (2), food impaction (1), and delayed stent migration (2). Five patients underwent surgical resection. No significant chemoradiation or operative adverse events occurred due to the presence of a stent.

CONCLUSIONS

During neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer, self-expanding metal stents are safe and effective in relieving dysphagia and maintaining nutrition. They allow patients to eat orally, thereby improving patient satisfaction. The presence of an in situ stent did not interfere with surgery.

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.

Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is associated with higher complication and mortality rates when compared to a general patient population. The pull technique is still the preferred technique worldwide but it has some limitations. The aim of this study is to compare the pull and introducer PEG techniques in patients with HNC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is based on a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 309 patients with HNC who underwent PEG in the Cancer Institute of São Paulo.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed with the standard endoscope in 205 patients and the introducer technique was used in 137 patients. There was one procedure-related mortality. Age, sex and albumin level were similar in both groups. However in the introducer technique group, patients had a higher tumor stage, a lower Karnofsky status, and presented more frequently with tracheostomy and trismus. Overall, major, minor, immediate and late complications and 30-day mortality rates were similar but the introducer technique group presented more minor bleeding and tube dysfunctions.

CONCLUSION

The push and introducer PEG techniques seem to be both safe and effective but present different complication profiles. The choice of PEG technique in patients with HNC should be made individually.

Risk of Esophageal Cancer Following Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study in Taiwan

Esophageal cancers account for majority of synchronous or metachronous head and neck cancers. This study examined the risk of esophageal cancer following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer patients using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 1997 to 2010, we identified and analyzed 1851 PEG patients and 3702 sex-, age-, and index date-matched controls. After adjusting for esophagitis, esophagus stricture, esophageal reflux, and primary sites, the PEG cohort had a higher adjusted hazard ratio (2.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-4.09) of developing esophageal cancer than the controls. Primary tumors in the oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx were associated with higher incidence of esophageal cancer. The adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% CI = 1.01-1.88), 3.99 (95% CI = 2.76-4.98), and 1.98 (95% CI = 1.11-2.76), respectively. Head and neck cancer patients treated with PEG were associated with a higher risk of developing esophageal cancer, which could be fixed by surgically placed tubes.

Does prior percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy alter post-operative outcome after esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal carcinoma, nutritional access has become essential to counter deleterious effects of dysphagia. Current NCCN guidelines do not recommend PEG prior to esophagectomy in these patients, but there is little evidence for this recommendation. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in patients who underwent esophagectomy with or without prior PEG placement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 96 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2005 and 2012 for esophageal carcinoma. Patients were divided into two groups; Group I (PEG +ve) and Group II (PEG -ve). Patient characteristics, operative variables, and post-operative complications were compared. χ (2) and Fisher's test were used for categorical, while t test was used for interval variables.

RESULTS

Median age was 51(18-70) years. Lower thoracic tumors were more common in Group I (69 vs. 63 %) (P = 0.04) and more patients underwent minimally invasive surgery in this group (50 vs. 2.6 %) (P < 0.0001). Mean blood loss (326 vs. 465 ml) (P = 0.02) and ICU stay (1.6 vs. 4.3 days) (P = 0.01) were significantly lower in Group I. There was no 30-day mortality in Group I versus 10.5 % in Group II (P = 0.01). No significant difference in anastomotic leak and stricture rate was observed. Gastric conduit was used in all patients for reconstruction. One patient had malignancy in PEG site biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy before esophagectomy is safe and does not adversely impact post-operative outcomes.

Feasibility and Safety of Overtubes for PEG-Tube Placement in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Background. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement using the “pull” technique is commonly utilized for providing nutritional support in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, but it may be complicated by peristomal metastasis in up to 3% of patients. Overtube-assisted PEG placement might reduce this risk. However, this technique has not been systemically studied for this purpose to date. Methods. Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with HNC who underwent overtube-assisted PEG placement at Westmead Hospital, Australia, between June 2011 and December 2013. Data were extracted from patients' endoscopy reports and case notes. We present our technique for PEG insertion and discuss the feasibility and safety of this method. Results. In all 53 patients studied, the PEG tubes were successfully placed using 25 cm long flexible overtubes, in 89% prophylactically (before commencing curative chemoradiotherapy), and in 11% reactively (for treatment of tumor related dysphagia or weight loss). During a median follow-up period of 16 months, 3 (5.7%) patients developed peristomal infection and 3 others developed self-limiting peristomal pain. There were no cases of overtube-related adverse events or overt cutaneous metastases observed. Conclusions. Overtube-assisted PEG placement in patients with HNC is a feasible, simple, and safe technique and might be effective for preventing cutaneous metastasis.

Adverse events associated with percutaneous enteral access

Placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or jejunostomy is a safe procedure with low periprocedural mortality, but overall mortality rates are high because of underlying disease conditions. These procedures are also associated with postprocedure complications. The clinically significant adverse events related to the procedures include infection (at tube site and peritonitis), bleeding, and aspiration. More rare associated events include buried bumpers, injury to adjacent viscera with subsequent fistula formation, and tumor seeding. There is a lack of guidelines about these procedures other than those concerning the use of antibiotics and the management of antithrombotics and anticoagulation before the procedure.

Gastroenteric tube feeding: Techniques, problems and solutions

Gastroenteric tube feeding plays a major role in the management of patients with poor voluntary intake, chronic neurological or mechanical dysphagia or gut dysfunction, and patients who are critically ill. However, despite the benefits and widespread use of enteral tube feeding, some patients experience complications. This review aims to discuss and compare current knowledge regarding the clinical application of enteral tube feeding, together with associated complications and special aspects. We conducted an extensive literature search on PubMed, Embase and Medline using index terms relating to enteral access, enteral feeding/nutrition, tube feeding, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/jejunostomy, endoscopic nasoenteric tube, nasogastric tube, and refeeding syndrome. The literature showed common routes of enteral access to include nasoenteral tube, gastrostomy and jejunostomy, while complications fall into four major categories: mechanical, e.g., tube blockage or removal; gastrointestinal, e.g., diarrhea; infectious e.g., aspiration pneumonia, tube site infection; and metabolic, e.g., refeeding syndrome, hyperglycemia. Although the type and frequency of complications arising from tube feeding vary considerably according to the chosen access route, gastrointestinal complications are without doubt the most common. Complications associated with enteral tube feeding can be reduced by careful observance of guidelines, including those related to food composition, administration rate, portion size, food temperature and patient supervision.