Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Long-Term Feeding of Patients With Oropharyngeal Tumors

Nutritional Management of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer-A Comprehensive Review

While surgical therapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) is showing improvement with the advancement of reconstruction techniques, the focus in these patients should also be shifting to supportive pre and aftercare. Due to the highly sensitive and anatomically complex region, these patients tend to exhibit malnutrition, which has a substantial impact on their recovery and quality of life. The complications and symptoms of both the disease and the therapy usually make these patients unable to orally intake food, hence, a strategy should be prepared for their nutritional management. Even though there are several possible nutritional modalities that can be administrated, these patients commonly have a functional gastrointestinal tract, and enteral nutrition is indicated over the parenteral option. However, after extensive research of the available literature, it seems that there is a limited number of studies that focus on this important issue. Furthermore, there are no recommendations or guidelines regarding the nutritional management of HNC patients, pre- or post-operatively. Henceforth, this narrative review summarizes the nutritional challenges and management modalities in this particular group of patients. Nonetheless, this issue should be addressed in future studies and an algorithm should be established for better nutritional care of these patients.

A Case of Non-cutaneous Kaposi Sarcoma

Kaposi sarcoma is a malignancy common in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). It is a proliferative soft-tissue tumor commonly manifesting as pigmented papules and nodules on the skin. Lesions can also appear on the mucosal lining of the oropharynx and other parts of the body such as the lymph nodes. Head and neck involvement in Kaposi sarcoma is not unusual; however, laryngeal involvement is not commonly seen. We report the case of a 31-year-old gentleman, a former smoker with AIDS, who developed a mass in the throat with progressive hoarseness of voice without stridor. An elective tracheostomy was done to protect his airway before performing a direct laryngoscopy with biopsy. Histopathology examination showed neoplastic spindle cells positive for CD31, erythroblast transformation specific-related gene, and human herpesvirus 8, consistent with Kaposi sarcoma. The diagnosis of laryngeal Kaposi sarcoma in immunodeficient patients requires a high index of suspicion, especially when it occurs without classical dermatological manifestation, an interesting feature in this report.

The effect of timing of enteral nutrition support on feeding outcomes and dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) often require enteral nutrition (EN). This systematic review reports the effect of EN timing in patients with HNC undergoing curative-intent and definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy on tube feeding duration, tube-related complications and dysphagia.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2015-April 2020 were obtained from Medline, CINAHL and Embase. Study quality and certainty of evidence were assessed with Cochrane Risk-of-Bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Two RCTs (n = 265) in five manuscripts were included. The risk of bias was moderate in one RCT and low in the other RCT. Timing of EN (prophylactic vs. reactive) may have little or no effect on tube feeding duration or complications, however, the effect on dysphagia was uncertain. Certainty of evidence was low for short-term and moderate for long-term tube feeding duration, low for tube-related complications and very low for dysphagia. There was imprecision due to small sample sizes, heterogeneity in the definitions and protocols for prophylactic and reactive EN, variations in time points for outcome assessment and indirect dysphagia measures.

CONCLUSION

Larger well-designed trials are warranted to increase certainty of evidence regarding EN timing in patients with HNC.

Enteral Nutrition Support of Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Patients with head and neck cancer are at high risk for malnutrition due to dysphagia from the tumor and treatment. Despite difficulty with oral intake, these patients usually have a normal stomach and lower gastrointestinal tract. Enteral nutrition support via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) administered in the home by the patient helps to prevent weight loss, dehydration, nutrient deficiencies, treatment interruptions, and hospitalizations. It also improves quality of life. Successful management of these patients requires orderly care and follow-up by a multidisciplinary nutrition team.

Predictive Factors for Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Tube Placement and Use in Head and Neck Patients Following Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Treatment: Concordance, Discrepancies, and the Role of Gabapentin

The prophylactic placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube in the head and neck cancer (HNC) patient is controversial. We sought to identify factors associated with prophylactic PEG placement and actual PEG use. Since 2010, data regarding PEG placement and use were prospectively recorded in a departmental database from January 2010 to December 2012. HNC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were retrospectively evaluated from 2010 to 2012. Variables potentially associated with patient post-radiation dysphagia from previous literature, and our experience was evaluated. We performed multivariate logistic regression on these variables with PEG placement and PEG use, respectively, to compare the difference of association between the two arms. We identified 192 HNC patients treated with IMRT. Prophylactic PEG placement occurred in 121 (63.0 %) patients, with PEG use in 97 (80.2 %) patients. PEG placement was associated with male gender (p < .01), N stage ≥ N2 (p < .05), pretreatment swallowing difficulties (p < .01), concurrent chemotherapy (p < .01), pretreatment KPS ≥80 (p = .01), and previous surgery (p = .02). Concurrent chemotherapy (p = .03) was positively associated with the use of PEG feeding by the patient, whereas pretreatment KPS ≥80 (p = .03) and prophylactic gabapentin use (p < .01) were negatively associated with PEG use. The analysis suggests there were discrepancies between prophylactic PEG tube placement and actual use. Favorable pretreatment KPS, no pretreatment dysphagia, no concurrent chemotherapy, and the use of gabapentin were significantly associated with reduced PEG use. This analysis may help refine the indications for prophylactic PEG placement.

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.

Percutaneous feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer: rethinking prophylactic placement for patients undergoing chemoradiation

OBJECTIVES

Although intensified therapy has contributed to improved outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer, acute toxicity has increased as well. To lessen the severity of nutritional compromise in these patients, our institutional protocol has been to routinely place feeding tubes before the initiation of therapy. This investigation details the toxicities associated with feeding tube placement and predictors for duration of tube dependence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of the Radiation Oncology Department at Emory Clinic were reviewed for patients receiving definitive radiotherapy between 6/1/2003 and 6/1/2006. The records of the subset of patients with feeding tube placement before the initiation of therapy were then reviewed for toxicities as well as length of time of tube dependence.

RESULTS

There were 102 eligible patients. Radiotherapy was delivered with concomitant chemotherapy in all. Median time with feeding tube in place for all patients was 4.4 months (range, 0.2-28.9 months). For 82 patients with eventual tube removal, the median time of tube dependence was 3.8 months (range, 1.4-28.9 months). Risk factors for prolonged tube dependence are analyzed; on multivariate analysis, patient age, T stage, and nodal status remained significant. The most common complication was tube replacement, with 11.8% of all tubes requiring replacement. Infection and pain occurred in 8.8% and 5.9% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Feeding tubes are required for more than 2 months after combined modality treatment of head and neck cancer. They are generally well tolerated, but toxicities are not trivial: more than 10% require replacement and more than 8% of patients develop infection at the insertion site. We are assessing their routine placement in light of these data.

Patients experience with long-term percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding following primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding (PEG) has an important role in providing nutritional support in selected patients undergoing treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Although morbidity data have been published there is very little from the patient perspective. The aim of this project was to devise, pilot and survey a PEG specific questionnaire and relate outcomes to health-related quality of life. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in April 2005 of patients who were alive and disease free and treated by primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 1992 and June 2004. The survey comprised the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire and a 24 item PEG questionnaire. Of 344 alive and disease free patients, 243 (71%) responded. Clinical characteristics of responders and non responders were similar. Mean age of responders was 65 (SD 12) and 59% were male. There were 193 (79%) patients who never had a PEG as part of their treatment, 30 (12%) who had their PEG removed (median 7 months), and 20 (8%) who still had a PEG (median 34 months). Patients with PEGs reported significant deficits in all UW-QOL domains compared to non-PEG or PEG-removed patients and also reported a much poorer quality of life. The major PEG related problems were not those of discomfort, leakage or blockage, but interference with family life, intimate relationships, social activities, and hobbies. More can be done to counsel and support patients with long-term PEG placement.

Comparing pain control and ability to eat and drink with standard therapy vs Gelclair: a preliminary, double centre, randomised controlled trial on patients with radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis

GOAL OF THE WORK: Oral mucositis (OM) is a functionally destructive complication of aggressive head and neck cancer therapy, often resulting in intense pain, an inability to eat and drink and secondary malnutrition and dehydration. The barrier-forming properties of Gelclair have shown promise in relieving such symptoms. The aim of this randomised-controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of Gelclair, as compared to standard therapy, as a means of short-term symptom control for patients suffering from radiotherapy-induced OM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients, with radiotherapy-induced OM seen in two oncology centres in Devon, were randomised to either standard therapy (Sucralfate and Mucaine) or Gelclair and assessed over 24 h. Both treatments were taken four times during the 24-h period, 30 min before meals.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the Gelclair and standard therapy arms in terms of general pain (F = 1.512, df = 1, 17, ns). There did appear to be a trend towards pain improvement initially after the use of Gelclair, but this did not last for the full 24-h assessment period. There was no significant reduction in pain on speaking (F = 0.261, df = 1, 17, ns) nor an improvement in capacity to eat and drink, although the effects of standard therapy did appear to last longer than the Gelclair.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that Gelclair is no more effective than current standard practice in relieving the pain associated with radiotherapy-induced OM. Nevertheless, observations from this preliminary study warrant further investigation, with a view to shaping the way forward for head and neck cancer practice on a national level.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience

PURPOSE

To review the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center's experience in using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between September 1998 and June 2004, 50 patients with histologically confirmed cancer of the oropharynx underwent IMRT at our institution. There were 40 men and 10 women with a median age of 56 years (range, 28-78 years). The disease was Stage I in 1 patient (2%), Stage II in 3 patients (6%), Stage III in 7 (14%), and Stage IV in 39 (78%). Forty-eight patients (96%) received definitive treatment, and 2 (4%) were treated in the postoperative adjuvant setting. Concurrent chemotherapy was used in 43 patients (86%). Patients were treated using three different IMRT approaches: 76% dose painting, 18% concomitant boost with IMRT in both am and pm deliveries, and 6% concomitant boost with IMRT only in pm delivery. Regardless of the approach, the average prescription dose to the gross tumor planning target volume was 70 Gy, while the average dose delivered to the subclinical volume was 59.4 Gy in the dose painting group and 54 Gy in the concomitant boost group. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes (PEGs) were placed before the beginning of treatment in 84% of the patients. Acute and late toxicity were graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) radiation morbidity scoring criteria. Toxicity was also evaluated using subjective criteria such as the presence of esophageal stricture, and the need for PEG usage. The local progression-free, regional progression-free, and distant metastases-free rates, and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Three patients had persistent locoregional disease after treatment. The 2-year estimates of local progression-free, regional progression-free, distant metastases-free, and overall survival were 98%, 88%, 84%, and 98%, respectively. The worst acute mucositis experienced was Grade 1 in 4 patients (8%), Grade 2 in 27 (54%), and Grade 3 in 19 (38%). Xerostomia decreased with increasing time interval from the end of radiotherapy, and among the patients with at least 9 months of follow-up there was 67% Grade 0-1 and 33% Grade 2 toxicity. Of the 42 patients who required upfront PEG placement, 6 were still using PEG for nutrition at the time of this analysis. Three patients had cervical esophageal strictures, and of these, 1 was still PEG dependent 1 year after treatment. Two of these patients were treated with the IMRT concomitant boost am and pm approach, whereas the other was treated with the dose painting technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy achieved encouraging local control rates in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma. Treatment toxicity was acceptable even in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.