A prospective study comparing prophylactic gastrostomy to nutritional counselling with a therapeutic feeding tube if required in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy in Thai real-world practice

Interventions to improve quality of life in patients with head and neck cancers receiving radiation therapy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QOL) is impaired in patients with head and neck cancers (HNC) due to illness and treatment-associated morbidity. Although there is evidence from the studies on interventions' role in improving QOL receiving radiation therapy, these are not systematically synthesised. In this scoping review, we searched and synthesised the evidence on interventions to improve the QOL and its impact among patients with HNCs.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted using the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the extensions suggested by Levac et al. were incorporated. Two reviewers independently searched four electronic databases using key thesaurus and free-text terms, and the data was extracted, tabulated, synthesised and reported as categories.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine papers reported various interventions of diverse nature such as pharmacological, physical, nutritional, complementary and alternative therapies, psychosocial, oral care related, laser and photobiomodulation therapies, rehabilitative, educational, technology-based, surgical, device-related and nurse lead interventions. Most studies reported clinically meaningful impact of interventions on QOL, although the outcome differences were often statistically insignificant. Few studies reported a combination of interventions to address the multidimensional concerns faced by patients with HNCs. None of the studies examined the impact of interventions on QOL among long-term survivors of HNCs.

CONCLUSION

As QOL concerns in patients with HNCs are multifaceted, more extensive studies with complex multi-component interventions and robust research designs are warranted.

Tube feeding in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Head and neck cancer patients are frequently malnourished at the time of diagnosis and prior to the beginning of treatment. In addition, chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) causes or exacerbates symptoms, such as alteration or loss of taste, mucositis, xerostomia, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, with consequent worsening of malnutrition. If obstructing cancer and/or mucositis interfere with swallowing, enteral nutrition should be delivered by a nasogastric tube (NGT) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

AIM

To revise the studies comparing NGT and PEG in terms of nutritional outcomes, survival, hospitalizations, number of interruptions of radiotherapy, quality of life, swallowing function.

RESULTS

A total of 250 publications were identified via electronic databases. After screening the titles, abstracts and full texts, 26 manuscripts that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis. We divided the analysis in two sections: 1) comparison of enteral nutrition through NGT or PEG and 2) comparison of reactive PEG (R-PEG) and prophylactic PEG (P-PEG).

RESULTS

Both PEG and NGT are an effective method of providing nutritional support during chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. They are essentially comparable in terms of nutritional outcomes, number of radiotherapy interruptions, survival, and quality of life, whereas swallow function seems better with NGT. PEG may be associated with major complications such as exit site infection, malfunction, leakage, pain, and pulmonary infection and higher costs. Nevertheless, NGT dislodged more often, patients find it more inconvenient, may cause aspiration pneumonia and PEG has advantages over NGT of enhanced mobility and improved cosmesis. P-PEG and R-PEG are essentially similar in terms of nutritional outcomes, number of interruptions of radiotherapy, and survival. Conflicting results have been reported about quality of life.

CONCLUSION

PEG is not better than NGT in terms of nutritional, oncologic, and quality of life outcomes. Prophylactic feeding through NGT or PEG, compared to reactive feeding, does not offer significant advantages in terms of nutritional outcomes, interruptions of radiotherapy and survival. However, the number of prospective randomized studies on this topic is much limited and consequently definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Overall, it seems that further adequate prospective, randomized studies are needed to define the better nutritional intervention in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.