Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding via gastrostomy versus standard care in high risk patients with head and neck cancer

Impact of sarcopenia and myosteatosis on survival outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative-intent treatment

Malnutrition and sarcopenia are prevalent in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Pre-treatment sarcopenia and adverse oncological outcomes in this population are well described. The impact of myosteatosis and post-treatment sarcopenia is less well known. Patients with HNSCC (n = 125) undergoing chemoradiotherapy, radiotherapy alone and/or surgery were assessed for sarcopenia and myosteatosis, using cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) imaging at the third lumbar (L3) vertebra, at baseline and 3 months post-treatment. Outcomes were overall survival (OS) at 12 months and 5 years post-treatment. One hundred and one participants had a CT scan evaluable at one or two time points, of which sixty-seven (66 %) participants were sarcopenic on at least one time point. Reduced muscle attenuation affected 93 % (n = 92) pre-treatment compared with 97 % (n = 90) post-treatment. Five-year OS favoured those without post-treatment sarcopenia (hazard ratio, HR 0·37, 95 % CI 0·16, 0·88, P = 0·06) and those without both post-treatment myosteatosis and sarcopenia (HR 0·33, 95 % CI 0·13, 0·83, P = 0·06). Overall, rates of myosteatosis were high at both pre- and post-treatment time points. Post-treatment sarcopenia was associated with worse 5-year OS, as was post-treatment sarcopenia in those who had myosteatosis. Post-treatment sarcopenia should be evaluated as an independent risk factor for decreased long-term survival post-treatment containing radiotherapy (RT) for HNSCC.

Validation of a simple diet self-assessment tool (SDSAT) in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy

PURPOSE

The simple diet self-assessment tool (SDSAT) is a simple instrument for estimating the cancer patients' dietary intake. This study aimed to evaluate its reliability and validity among head and neck (HNC) cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

Two studies were conducted at the department of radiation oncology of a University-affiliated hospital, where HNC patients were assessed at baseline, mid-treatment and post-treatment of RT. In the first study, 25 patients (a total of 60 cases) were recruited by convenience sample method to estimate the interrater reliability of SDSAT. Then, 304 patients (a total of 912 cases) were involved in a prospective, longitudinal observational study. The criterion validity was confirmed by the agreement rate between SDSAT and 24-h dietary recall (24HR). The predictive validity was established by exploring the impact of the score of SDSAT on weight loss among HNC patients during RT.

RESULTS

The estimation of interrater reliability of SDSAT showed that weighted kappa was 0.82 (95%CI = 0.74-0.90, p < 0.001), suggesting a high level of agreement between two raters. The overall agreement rate between SDSAT and 24HR was 62.9% (574/912) and weighted kappa was 0.66 (95%CI = 0.63-0.70, p < 0.001), which indicated good criterion validity. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) showed that the score of SDSAT had a significant impact on weight loss (β = 1.40, 95%CI = 1.21-1.59, p < 0.001), which demonstrated good predictive validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDSAT demonstrated favorable reliability and validity. It is appropriate for estimation of dietary intake among HNC patients.

Tube feeding during treatment for head and neck cancer - Adherence and patient reported barriers

OBJECTIVES

The main aim was to investigate the incidence of patient adherence to nutritional tube feeding recommendations in patients with head and neck cancer and to determine patient barriers to meeting tube feeding prescription.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an observational study from a randomised controlled trial in patients with head and neck cancer deemed at high nutritional risk with prophylactic gastrostomy (n=125). Patients were randomised to receive early tube feeding prior to treatment (intervention group) or standard care. All patients in the intervention and standard care groups then commenced clinical tube feeding as required during treatment. Patients maintained a daily record of gastrostomy intake, main nutrition impact symptom necessitating gastrostomy use, and reasons for not meeting nutrition prescription. Adherence was defined as meeting ≥75% of total prescribed intake.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly male (89%), median age 60, with oropharyngeal tumours (78%), stage IV disease (87%) treated with chemoradiotherapy (87%). Primary reasons for gastrostomy use were poor appetite/dysgeusia (week 2-3) and odynophagia/mucositis (week 4-7). Early tube feeding adherence was 51%. Clinical tube feeding adherence was significantly higher in the intervention group (58% vs 38%, p=0.037). Key barriers to both phases of tube feeding were; nausea, early satiety and treatment factors (related to hospital healthcare processes).

CONCLUSIONS

Early tube feeding can improve patient adherence to clinically indicated tube feeding during treatment. Low adherence overall is a likely explanation for clinically significant weight loss despite intensive nutrition interventions. Optimising symptom management and strategies to overcome other barriers are key to improving adherence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials registry as ACTRN12612000579897.

Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer

Background:

Weight loss remains significant in patients with head and neck cancer, despite prophylactic gastrostomy and intensive dietary counseling. The aim of this study was to improve outcomes utilising an early nutrition intervention.

Methods:

Patients with head and neck cancer at a tertiary hospital in Australia referred for prophylactic gastrostomy prior to curative intent treatment were eligible for this single centre randomised controlled trial. Exclusions included severe malnutrition or dysphagia. Patients were assigned following computer-generated randomisation sequence with allocation concealment to either intervention or standard care. The intervention group commenced supplementary tube feeding immediately following tube placement. Primary outcome measure was percentage weight loss at three months post treatment.

Results:

Recruitment completed June 2015 with 70 patients randomised to standard care (66 complete cases) and 61 to intervention (56 complete cases). Following intention-to-treat analysis, linear regression found no effect of the intervention on weight loss (10.9±6.6% standard care vs 10.8±5.6% intervention, P=0.930) and this remained non-significant on multivariable analysis (P=0.624). No other differences were found for quality of life or clinical outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions:

The early intervention did not improve outcomes, but poor adherence to nutrition recommendations impacted on potential outcomes.

Comparison of Nutritional and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy Utilizing Prophylactic versus Reactive Nutrition Support Approaches

BACKGROUND

The optimal method of tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer remains unclear. A validated protocol is available that identifies high-nutritional-risk patients who would benefit from prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement. Adherence to this protocol is ultimately determined by clinical team discretion or patient decision.

OBJECTIVE

The study aim was to compare outcomes after adherence and nonadherence to this validated protocol, thus comparing a prophylactic and reactive approach to nutrition support in this patient population.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective comparative cohort study. Patients were observed during routine clinical practice over 2 years.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

Patients with head and neck cancer having curative-intent treatment between August 2012 and July 2014 at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia, were included if assessed as high nutrition risk according to the validated protocol (n=130). Patients were grouped according to protocol adherence as to whether they received prophylactic gastrostomy (PEG) per protocol recommendation (prophylactic PEG group, n=69) or not (no PEG group, n=61).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was percentage weight change during treatment. Secondary outcomes were feeding tube use and hospital admissions.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED

Fisher's exact, χ², and two sample t tests were performed to determine differences between the groups. Linear and logistic regression were used to examine weight loss and unplanned admissions, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients were 88% male, median age was 59 years, with predominantly stage IV oropharyngeal cancer receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy. Statistically significantly less weight loss in the prophylactic PEG group (7.0% vs 9.0%; P=0.048) and more unplanned admissions in the no PEG group (82% vs 75%; P=0.029). In the no PEG group, 26 patients (43%) required a feeding tube or had ≥10% weight loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic gastrostomy improved nutrition outcomes and reduced unplanned hospital admissions. Additional investigation of characteristics of patients with minimal weight loss or feeding tube use could help refine and improve the protocol.

Gastrostomy in head and neck cancer: current literature, controversies and research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article explores the literature on the role of gastrostomy tube feeding use in the management of head and neck cancer, with special attention to its indications, timing of insertion, advantages, complications and quality of life issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current guidelines in place across different countries and two ongoing randomized controlled trials are discussed in detail, and placed in the context of current evidence.

SUMMARY

There remains a lack of consensus about when and which enteral feeding routes (gastrostomy or nasogastric tube) should be used and controversy about the long-term effects on swallowing function as well as quality of life for patients. Local guidelines should be used or generated to guide practice or patients enrolled into existing trials until higher level evidence is generated.

[What nutritional management in patients with head and neck cancers undergoing radiotherapy? An overview]

Radiotherapy is an effective treatment for head and neck cancers but patients often experience side effects, which lead to malnutrition. Morbidity related to weight loss during treatment may include dehydration, hospitalization, compromised treatment efficacy, and reduced quality of life and may impact survival hence the importance of early nutritional management prior to radiotherapy. Multiple interventions have been implemented to help ameliorate the impact of treatment on weight loss and nutritional status, including the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. The goal of this overview is to search the predictive factors of malnutrition and an overview of the different types of nutritional interventions and their impact on the local control of the disease, mortality and quality of life of patients treated with radiotherapy or concomitant chemoradiotherapy.

Effect of Early Individualized Dietary Counseling on Weight Loss, Complications, and Length of Hospital Stay in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Comparative Study

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are at risk for undernutrition. Dietary counseling during treatment has positive effects on nutritional status and quality of life, however, the effects of dietary counseling started before initiation of treatment are currently unknown. Therefore we assessed the effect of early individualized dietary counseling (DC) on weight loss, major complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS) in patients with HNC. Ninety-five newly diagnosed HNC patients with (risk of) undernutrition receiving DC were compared to 95 matched HNC patients receiving usual nutritional care (UC). Difference in weight change over time was analyzed by generalized estimating equations (GEE). Differences in complications and LOS were studied by Pearson chi-squared and student's t-tests. Weight change between diagnosis and end of treatment was -6.0 ± 6.9% (DC) and -5.4 ± 5.7% (UC; GEE: -0.4kg, 95% confidence interval: -1.2 to 0.5; P = 0.44). Less DC patients experienced overall postoperative complications (44%/70%, P = 0.04). No effect on major postoperative or (chemo)radiotherapy complications or LOS was found. This study showed a lower prevalence of overall postoperative complications in HNC patients receiving DC but could not demonstrate an effect on weight loss, other complications, and LOS.

New radiotherapy techniques do not reduce the need for nutrition intervention in patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Since 2007, our institution has used validated guidelines for the insertion of proactive gastrostomy feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer. Helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) delivered by Tomotherapy, is an advanced radiotherapy technique introduced at our centre in 2010. This form of therapy reduces long-term treatment-related toxicity to normal tissues. The aim of this study is to compare weight change and need for tube feeding following H-IMRT (n=53) with patients that would have previously been treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n=134).

SUBJECTS/METHODS

Patients with head and neck cancer assessed as high nutritional risk with recommendation for proactive gastrostomy were identified from cohorts from 2007 to 2008 and 2010 to 2011. Retrospective data were collected on clinical factors, weight change from baseline to completion of treatment, incidence of severe weight loss (⩾ 10%) and tube feeding. Statistical analyses to compare outcomes between the two treatments included χ(2)-test, Fisher's exact and two-sample Wilcoxon tests (P<0.05).

RESULTS

The H-IMRT cohort had higher proportions of patients with definitive chemoradiotherapy (P=0.032) and more advanced N stage (P<0.001). Nutrition outcomes were not significantly different between H-IMRT and conformal radiotherapy, respectively: need for proactive gastrostomy (n=49, 92% versus n=115, 86%, P=0.213), median percentage weight change (-7.2% versus -7.3%, P=0.573) and severe weight loss incidence (28% versus 27%, P=0.843).

CONCLUSIONS

Both groups had median weight loss >5% and high incidences of tube feeding and severe weight loss. Nutrition intervention remains critical in this patient population, despite advances in radiotherapy techniques, and no changes to current management are recommended.