Early percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion maintains nutritional state in patients with aerodigestive tract cancer

Routine Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Head and Neck Cancers with Bilateral Neck Irradiation: A Regional Cancer Experience in New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are particularly susceptible to dysphagia and malnutrition. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement is a method used to manage these issues, but practices vary among institutions. At Midcentral District Health Board, patients receiving radiotherapy to the primary and bilateral neck regions routinely undergo prophylactic PEG placement. This study aimed to review the nutritional and PEG-related outcomes of these patients.

METHODS

Records of 49 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Their demographics, tumour and treatment characteristics were recorded. We evaluated patient weight loss, non-elective hospitalisation, treatment interruption rates, PEG-related complications, usage, dependency rates and late dysphagia rates.

RESULTS

Oropharyngeal cancers were the most common primary site (61.2%), and 83.7% of patients received primary chemoradiotherapy. Mean weight loss at treatment completion was 5.6% ± 4.3 (4.6 kg ± 3.9). The rate of non-elective hospitalisations was 26.5%, and only 2% of patients had treatment interruptions. Peristomal infection was the most frequent PEG complication (20.4%). No PEG-related mortality was reported. Median duration of PEG dependency was 97 days (14-388 days). Two patients remained permanently dependent at 3 years due to grade 3 dysphagia, and six patients experienced grade ≥2 late dysphagia.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that prophylactic PEG tube placement was relatively safe, with a high utilisation rate and low long-term dependence on PEG tubes after treatment completion. However, complications related to their use should be addressed through a multidisciplinary approach, with careful assessment by clinicians. The weight loss and hospitalisation rates observed were consistent with earlier studies that utilised prophylactic PEG tubes.

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.

Evaluation of a novel pre-treatment model of nutrition care for patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy

AIMS

Weight loss and malnutrition occur frequently in patients with head and neck cancer and are associated with reduced survival. This pragmatic study aimed to determine the effect of a novel pre-treatment model of nutrition care on nutrition outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

This health service evaluation consisted of an evaluation of the new model of care implementation (Phase 1) and an evaluation of patient outcomes (Phase 2) in pre- and post-implementation cohorts (n = 64 and n = 47, respectively). All Phase 2 patients received a prophylactic gastrostomy. The new model of care consisted of dietary counselling and commencement of proactive supplementary enteral nutrition via a prophylactic gastrostomy, in addition to normal oral intake, prior to treatment commencement. Nutrition outcomes were collected at baseline (pre-treatment) and 3 months post-radiotherapy completion.

RESULTS

The new model of care was successfully incorporated into practice with high referral (96.5%) and attendance (91.5%) rates to the counselling session, and high adherence rates to proactive tube feeding (80.9%). Patients in the post-implementation cohort had less weight-loss (1.2%; p = 0.338) and saw less of a decline in nutritional status compared to patients in the pre-implementation cohort (23% vs. 30%, respectively; p = 0.572), deemed clinically important. However, patients still experienced critical weight loss overall (mean 9.9%).

CONCLUSION

Pre-treatment nutrition care was feasible in standard clinical practice and demonstrated clinically relevant outcome improvements for patients. Future high-quality research is warranted to investigate further multidisciplinary strategies to attenuate weight-loss further, inclusive of patient-reported barriers and enablers to nutrition interventions.

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.

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with head and neck cancer: Influence on nutritional status, utilisation rate and complications

BACKGROUND

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are at high risk for malnutrition because of tumour localisation and therapy. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is common practice to prevent malnutrition.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the benefits of prophylactic PEG tube placement for HNC patients in terms of the influence on patients' nutritional status, utilisation rate, complications and to identify the predictors of PEG tube utilisation.

METHODS

All consecutive HNC patients who underwent prophylactic PEG tube insertion between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012 prior to therapy were enrolled. The PEG tube utilisation rate, complications, the patients' nutritional status and tumour therapy were evaluated with the help of electronic patient charts and telephone interviews.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients (48 female, median 67.5 years) were included. The PEG utilisation rate in the entire cohort was 91.7%. One hundred and forty-nine patients (82.3%) used the PEG tube for total enteral nutrition, 17 patients (9.4%) for supplemental nutrition and 15 patients (8.3%) made no use of the PEG tube. Peristomal wound infections were the most common complications (40.3%) in this study. A high Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score prior to tube insertion was found to be independently associated with PEG utilisation. No significant weight changes were observed across the three patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall PEG tube utilisation rate was high in this study. However, given the high rate of infections, diligent patient selection is crucial in order to determine which patients benefit most from prophylactic PEG tube insertion.

Quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer after prophylactic percutaneous-gastrostomy

BACKGROUND

HNC patients often experience weight loss during treatment. To date, there is only limited data on patient quality of life (QLQ) and subjective benefit of the PEG insertion.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the nutritional status, QLQ, and overall benefit.

METHODS

181 patients fitting our inclusion criteria (01/2012-12/2012) were enrolled. Utilization rate, nutritional status, QLQ, and subjective PEG assessment were determined with electronic charts and the Quality of life-questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30).

RESULTS

The utilization rate of the entire cohort was 91.7%. The PEG was used full-time by 149 patients. No statistical differences in QLQ were observed between the groups. Of the patients that used the PEG entirely (99.7%), partially (85.3%) or not all (55.3%) would 99.7%, 85.3 and 55.8% undergo the procedure in the future if necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

QLQ was not significantly reduced by insertion. Especially patients using the PEG full-time had an objective and subjective benefit from the inserted PEG tube.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding of locally advanced oro-pharygo-laryngeal cancer patients: Blenderized or commercial food?

OBJECTIVES

Head and neck cancer patients commonly suffer from severe malnutrition at the time of tentative diagnosis. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy [PEG] feeding is now considered as an efficient tool to reduce nutritional deterioration alongside concurrent treatment. We undertook the challenge to retrospectively evaluate the impact of a commercial, disease-specific, feeding formula [Supportan, Fresenius Kabi, Hellas] versus blenderized family food on nutritional outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected nutritional and anthropometric data at the time of PEG placement, at the 8th week [after treatment termination] and at 8 months [6mo of recovery from treatment]. All patients were prescribed a commercial feeding formula.

RESULTS

The final dataset included 212 patients: 112 received the commercial formula, 69 voluntarily decided to switch into blenderized-tube-feeding, and 31 were prescribed to receive a home-made formula of standard ingredients. The commercial formula seemed to help patients to fight the catabolism of concurrent treatment, since, at the 8mo assessment, both Body Mass index and Fat Free Mass had almost recovered to the values at the time of first diagnosis. Neither group on blenderized or home-made formulas exhibited nutritional improvement, but experienced a significant deterioration throughout the study period, with the home-made formula group being the worst.

CONCLUSION

These findings clearly indicate that home-made and blenderized foods do not adequately support the nutritional requirements of patients with HNC scheduled to receive concurrent CRT treatment.

Radiation-induced acute dysphagia : Prospective observational study on 42 head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

Acute toxicity in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT) has a crucial role in compliance to treatments. The aim of this study was to correlate doses to swallowing-associated structures and acute dysphagia.

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed 42 H&N cancer patients treated with RT. Dysphagia (grade ≥ 3) and indication for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion were classified as acute toxicity. Ten swallowing-related structures were considered for the dosimetric analysis. The correlation between clinical information and the dose absorbed by the contoured structures was analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression method using resampling methods (bootstrapping) was applied to select model order and parameters for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modelling.

RESULTS

A strong multiple correlation between dosimetric parameters was found. A two-variable model was suggested as the optimal order by bootstrap method. The optimal model (Rs = 0.452, p < 0.001) includes V₄₅ of the cervical esophagus (odds ratio [OR] = 1.016) and D_mean of the cricopharyngeal muscle (OR = 1.057). The model area under the curve was 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.69-0.95).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested that the absorbed dose to the cricopharyngeal muscle and cervical esophagus might play a relevant role in the development of acute RT-related dysphagia.

Evidence-Based Support for Nutrition Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients diagnosed with head and neck (H&N) cancer often present in a malnourished state for varied reasons; nutritional optimization is therefore critical to the success of treatment for these complex patients. This article aims to review the current nutrition literature pertaining to H&N cancer patients and to present evidence-based strategies for nutritional support specific to this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Aggressive nutritional intervention is frequently required in the H&N cancer patient population. Rehabilitating nutrition during operative and nonoperative treatment improves compliance with treatment, quality of life, and clinical outcomes. When and whether to establishing alternative enteral access are points of controversy, although recent evidence suggests prophylactic enteral feeding tube placement should not be universally applied. Perioperative nutritional optimization including preoperative carbohydrate loading and provision of arginine-supplemented immunonutrition has been shown to benefit at-risk H&N cancer patients.

SUMMARY

With multidisciplinary collaboration, H&N cancer patients can receive individualized nutritional support to withstand difficult cancer treatment regimens and return to acceptable states of nutritional health.

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.

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.

Exploration of risk factors for weight loss in head and neck cancer patients

Introduction

Head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy can experience a number of toxicities, including weight loss and malnutrition, which can impact upon the quality of treatment. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study is to evaluate weight loss and identify predictive factors for this patient group.

Materials and methods

A total of 40 patients treated with radiotherapy since 2012 at the study centre were selected for analysis. Data were collected from patient records. The association between potential risk factors and weight loss was investigated.

Results

Mean weight loss was 5 kg (6%). In all, 24 patients lost >5% starting body weight. Age, T-stage, N-stage, chemotherapy and starting body weight were individually associated with significant differences in weight loss. On multiple linear regression analysis age and nodal status were predictive.

Conclusion

Younger patients and those with nodal disease were most at risk of weight loss. Other studies have identified the same risk factors along with several other variables. The relative significance of each along with a number of other potential factors is yet to be fully understood. Further research is required to help identify patients most at risk of weight loss; and assess interventions aimed at preventing weight loss and malnutrition.

The effect of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement on swallowing and swallow-related outcomes in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) often experience malnutrition and dehydration during treatment. As a result, some centres place PEG tubes prophylactically (pPEG) to prevent these negative consequences. However, recent research has suggested that pPEG use may negatively affect swallowing physiology, function and/or quality of life, especially in the long term. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on pPEG use in HNC patients undergoing radiotherapy and to determine its impact on swallowing-related outcomes. The following electronic databases were searched for all relevant primary research published through February 24, 2014: AMED, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Healthstar, Medline, and PsycINFO. Main search terms included HNC, radiotherapy, deglutition disorders, feeding tube(s), and prophylactic or elective. References for all accepted papers were hand searched to identify additional relevant research. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias. At all levels, two blinded raters provided judgments. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The search retrieved 181 unique citations. Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Quality assessment revealed that all studies were at risk for bias due to non-randomized sampling and unreported or inadequate blinding. Ten studies demonstrated selection bias with significant baseline differences between pPEG patients and controls. Results regarding the frequency and severity of dysphagia and swallowing-related outcomes were varied and inconclusive. The impact of pPEG use on swallowing and swallowing-related outcomes remains unclear. Well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine if pPEG places patients at greater risk for developing long-term dysphagia.

Peritonitis related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using the direct method for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using the direct method is generally indicated for cancer patients. However, there are little available data about peritonitis related to this method. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess peritonitis related to PEG using the direct method in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We assessed the prevalence of peritonitis and the relationship between peritonitis and patients' backgrounds, as well as the clinical course after peritonitis.

RESULTS

Between December 2008 and December 2011, peritonitis was found in 9 (2.1 %) of 421 patients. Of the 9 patients with peritonitis, 4 had received PEG prior to chemoradiotherapy. Emergency surgical drainage was required in 1 patient, and the remaining 8 recovered with conservative treatment. Peritonitis occurred within 8 days of PEG for 8 of the 9 patients and occurred within 2 days of suture removal for 4 of the 9 patients.

CONCLUSION

Peritonitis related to PEG using the direct method was less frequent for cancer patients. Peritonitis tended to occur within a few days after removal of securing suture and in patients with palliative stage.

Gastrostomy dependence in head and neck carcinoma patient receiving post-operative therapy

OBJECTIVE

Post-operative concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves the rates of locoregional control and disease-free survival in high-risk patients but has significant adverse effects. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and opioid-based pain control increase treatment completion rates but can result in dysphagia.

METHODS

The rate and duration of use of prophylactically placed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies were evaluated in 43 patients who underwent post-operative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy from April 2007 through March 2010. All patients completed treatment and received 60 Gy or more of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Thirty four of 43 patients (79.1%) used percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies, which could later be removed in 25 of 34 patients. The median period of use was 108 days. Only one disease-free patient was permanently dependent on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding. The frequency of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use among patients with oral, oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer was 91.7, 100 and 54.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use is not required in patients receiving post-operative chemoradiotherapy and will not lead to dysphagia.

Clinical nutrition guidelines of the French Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (SFNEP): Summary of recommendations for adults undergoing non-surgical anticancer treatment

Up to 50% of patients with cancer suffer from weight loss and undernutrition (as called cachexia) even though it is rarely screened or properly handled. Patients' prognosis and quality of life could be greatly improved by simple and inexpensive means encompassing nutritional status assessment and effective nutritional care. These guidelines aim to give health professionals and patients practical and up-to-date advice to manage nutrition in the principal situations encountered during the cancer course according to the type of tumour and treatment (i.e. radio and/or chemotherapy). Specific suggestions are made for palliative and elderly patients because of specific risks of undernutrition and related comorbidities in this subset. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations are detailed as stated by current literature and consensus opinion of clinical experts in each field.

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

Background

Patients with head and neck cancer are at high risk of malnutrition and dysphagia. Enteral tube feeding via a gastrostomy or nasogastric tube is often required in response to dysphagia, odynophagia or side effects of treatment that lead to dehydration and/or weight-loss. A recent systematic review concluded that the optimal method of tube feeding remains unclear; however prophylactic gastrostomy, placed in anticipation of its use during and after treatment, is common practice, following a number of demonstrated benefits. However the majority of these studies have been undertaken in patients receiving radiotherapy alone. More recent studies in patient populations receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy are showing that despite prophylactic gastrostomy placement significant weight loss still occurs, placing the patient at risk of the consequences of malnutrition. Therefore we set out to investigate innovative prophylactic nutrition support via the gastrostomy to optimise the nutritional outcomes of patients with head and neck cancer.

Methods/Design

Patients with head and neck cancer will be eligible for this single centre randomised controlled trial if they are identified for referral for a prophylactic gastrostomy using local guidelines. Patients will be excluded if they are: under the age of eighteen; pregnant; unable to give informed consent; or severely malnourished or moderately malnourished with significant dysphagia requiring a liquid or puree diet. All eligible patients who consent for the study will be allocated randomly to either the intervention or control group (usual care). The intervention group will commence prophylactic supplementary nutrition support via the gastrostomy immediately following placement compared to usual care where nutrition support is commenced via the gastrostomy when clinically indicated during treatment. Key outcome measures will be percentage weight loss, body composition, nutritional status and quality of life, measured at baseline and three months post treatment.

Discussion

To our knowledge this is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of early prophylactic tube feeding compared to commencement of feeding during treatment, as per current standard practice, in patients undergoing prophylactic gastrostomy prior to treatment for head and neck cancer.

Trial registration

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

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review

There are two main enteral feeding strategies-namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy-used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optimal method for this patient group. To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous gastrostomy and NGT feeding in patients with HNC, relevant literature was identified through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane, Wiley and manual searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-experimental studies comparing percutaneous gastrostomy-including percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) -with NG for HNC patients. Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to the methodological quality of the individual studies. Data were then compared with respect to nutritional status, duration of feeding, complications, radiotherapy delays, disease-free survival and overall survival. Methodological quality of RCTs and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales. It became apparent from our studies that both feeding strategies have advantages and disadvantages.

Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in hospitalized patients at a tertiary care center in Turkey

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis characterizing patients receiving tube feeding following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement between 2004 and 2012 at Erciyes University Hospital in Turkey.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

Patients above the age of 18 years who required long-term enteral tube feeding were studied. All PEGs were performed using the pull-through technique by one experienced endoscopist. Demographic, clinical outcomes and PEG-related complication data were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 128 subjects studied, 91 were men (71%) and 37 were women (29%). The mean age of this patient population was 54 ± 19 years. The most common reason for PEG tube insertion was the inability to consume oral diet due to complications of cerebrovascular disease (27%), while cerebral hypoxia, occurring after nonneurological medical disorders, was the second most common indication (23%). A total of 70 patients (55%) had chronic comorbidities, with hypertension being the most common (20%). The most common procedure-related complication was insertion-site bleeding, which occurred in 4% of patients. Long-term complications during 1 year were insertion-site cellulitis, gastric contents leakage and peristomal ulceration, which occurred in 14%, 5% and 0.5% of patients, respectively. There were no PEG insertion-related mortalities; 1-year mortality was unrelated to the indication for PEG tube insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

PEG tube insertion was a safe method to provide enteral access for nutrition support in this hospitalized patient population.

Toxicities and costs of placing prophylactic and reactive percutaneous gastrostomy tubes in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

We compared dependence rates, complications, toxicities, and costs associated with prophylactic versus reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-three patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The 1-year and 2-year actuarial PEG tube dependence rate of the entire cohort was 24% and 13%, respectively. There was no difference in the PEG tube dependence rates between those placed prophylactically versus reactively. Patients who received a PEG tube reactively had a significantly higher stricture rate (p = .03) and aspiration rate (p < .001) compared to the prophylactic group. There were significantly fewer hospitalizations in the prophylactic group compared to the reactive group (p = .003). When accounting for both PEG placement and hospitalizations, the prophylactic approach was found to be more cost effective.

CONCLUSION

PEG tubes placed prophylactically were associated with lower rates of strictures, aspirations, hospitalizations, and costs compared to those placed reactively.

Nasogastric and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube use in advanced head and neck cancer patients: a comparative study

To compare the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and nasogastric (NGT) tube administration of enteral nutrition in head and neck cancer patients undergoing curative treatment, the authors conducted a prospective study to compare nutritional outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction. PEG patients sustained significantly less reduction in nutritional parameters, measured at 6 weeks post insertion, as compared with NGT patients. There was also a statistically significant difference between the two groups in patient's quality of life scores and complications. Comparison could not be done at 6 months because all patients were converted to PEG feeding due to the earlier findings. The authors conclude that PEG is more efficacious than NGT as a channel for nutrition in advanced head and neck cancer patients over a short duration.

Enteral feeding methods for nutritional management in patients with head and neck cancers being treated with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2010.For many patients with head and neck cancer, oral nutrition will not provide adequate nourishment during treatment with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy due to the acute toxicity of treatment, obstruction caused by the tumour, or both. The optimal method of enteral feeding for this patient group has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different enteral feeding methods used in the nutritional management of patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy using the clinical outcomes, nutritional status, quality of life and rates of complications.

SEARCH METHODS

Our extensive search included the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and ISI Web of Science. The date of the most recent search was 13 February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing one method of enteral feeding with another, e.g. nasogastric (NG) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, for adult patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

One randomised controlled trial met the criteria for inclusion in this review. No further studies were identified when we updated the searches in 2012.Patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer, being treated with chemoradiotherapy, were randomised to PEG or NG feeding. In total only 33 patients were eligible for analysis as the trial was terminated early due to poor accrual. A high degree of bias was identified in the study.Weight loss was greater for the NG group at six weeks post-treatment than for the PEG group (P = 0.001). At six months post-treatment, however, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. Anthropometric measurements recorded six weeks post-treatment demonstrated lower triceps skin fold thickness for the NG group compared to the PEG group (P = 0.03). No statistically significant difference was found between the two different enteral feeding techniques in relation to complication rates or patient satisfaction. The duration of PEG feeding was significantly longer than for the NG group (P = 0.0006). In addition, the study calculated the cost of PEG feeding to be 10 times greater than that of NG, though this was not found to be significant. There was no difference in the treatment received by the two groups. However, four PEG fed patients and two NG fed patients required unscheduled treatment breaks of a median of two and six days respectively.We identified no studies of enteral feeding involving any form of radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) feeding or comparing prophylactic PEG versus PEG for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not sufficient evidence to determine the optimal method of enteral feeding for patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy. Further trials of the two methods of enteral feeding, incorporating larger sample sizes, are required.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of routine placement of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pPEG) tubes was assessed in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) who are undergoing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with concurrent chemotherapy.

METHODS

From 1998 through 2009, 400 consecutive patients with OPC who underwent chemoradiation were included. Of these, 325 had a pPEG and 75 did not (nPEG). Weight and albumin change from baseline to mid-IMRT, end of IMRT, 1 month post-IMRT, and 3 months post-IMRT were evaluated. The treating physicians prospectively recorded acute and late toxicities.

RESULTS

Significantly lower absolute weight loss at end of IMRT (6.80 kg vs 8.38 kg, P = .007), 1 month post-IMRT (9.06 kg vs 11.33 kg, P = .006), and 3 months post-IMRT (11.10 kg vs 13.09 kg, P = .044) was noted in the pPEG versus nPEG groups. This benefit in reduction of percent weight loss was consistently significant only among patients with BMI < 25. Significant differences were noted in hospital admission rate (15.1% vs 26.7%, P = .026) and volume of nonchemotherapy hydration (8.9 liters vs 17.2 liters, P = .004). There were no differences in percent albumin change, acute dysphagia, acute mucositis, acute xerostomia, chronic dysphagia, radiation treatment duration, and overall survival. Multivariate analysis noted age >55 years (P < .001), female sex (P < .001), and T3/4 category disease (P < .001) were significantly associated with prolonged PEG use.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pPEG reduced absolute and percent weight loss and need for hospitalizations in our cohort of patients with OPC undergoing chemoradiation, no differences were noted in radiation treatment duration, toxicity, and overall survival. Prolonged PEG use correlated with age >55 years, female sex, and T3/T4 tumors.

When is the optimal time for placing a gastrostomy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Determining the optimal timing for placing a gastrostomy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer involves complex decision making and multifactorial analysis. Lack of high-quality studies with appropriate end points for nutritional outcomes and heterogeneity of patient, clinical and organizational factors makes determining best practice nutritional care challenging. This review provides a background rationale for gastrostomy placement and evaluates the relevant literature extending beyond the past 12 months due to limited numbers of published studies. Emerging concepts and controversies are highlighted to demonstrate that the decision to place a gastrostomy or not has eclipsed the significance of patients' nutritional needs leading to much debate and inconsistencies in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

While the optimal method of tube feeding remains unclear due to challenges with study design, improved outcomes have been demonstrated with prophylactic tube feeding. Variation exists with selection criteria in the decision for gastrostomy placement based on clinical opinion rather than evidence-based practice. Gastrostomy use as a measure of swallowing outcomes and the presence of a feeding tube for quality of life (QOL) have led to the concept of gastrostomy dependency and a perceived association with poorer outcomes. The multidimensional contributors have been inadequately explored leaving this phenomenon poorly defined and misinterpreted. Best practice nutritional care incorporates malnutrition screening and nutritional assessment using validated tools, early referral to the dietitian and ongoing monitoring to optimize nutritional status throughout the patient's entire care pathway.

SUMMARY

The decision for timing of gastrostomy placement should be made at diagnosis given the benefits of prophylactic tube feeding. Accountability for insertion and removal of gastrostomies with alignment of services will facilitate risk assessment, appropriate placement, effective patient counselling and monitoring for major and minor complications. Nutritional outcomes need to be distinguished from swallowing and QOL measures and evaluated to include effects on nutritional status, gastrostomy complications, intensity and frequency of dietetic support and effect on survival.

Swallowing dysfunction in head and neck cancer patients treated by radiotherapy: review and recommendations of the supportive task group of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE

Dysphagia is a debilitating complication in head and neck cancer patients (HNCPs) that may cause a high mortality rate for aspiration pneumonia. The aims of this paper were to summarize the normal swallowing mechanism focusing on its anatomo-physiology, to review the relevant literature in order to identify the main causes of dysphagia in HNCPs and to develop recommendations to be adopted for radiation oncology patients. The chemotherapy and surgery considerations on this topic were reported in recommendations only when they were supposed to increase the adverse effects of radiotherapy on dysphagia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The review of literature was focused on studies reporting dysphagia as a pre-treatment evaluation and as cancer and cancer therapy related side-effects, respectively. Relevant literature through the primary literature search and by articles identified in references was considered. The members of the group discussed the results and elaborated recommendations according to the Oxford CRBM levels of evidence and recommendations. The recommendations were revised by external Radiation Oncology, Ear Nose and Throat (ENT), Medical Oncology and Speech Language Pathology (SLP) experts.

RESULTS

Recommendations on pre-treatment assessment and on patients submitted to radiotherapy were given. The effects of concurrent therapies (i.e. surgery or chemotherapy) were taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

In HNCPs treatment, disease control has to be considered in tandem with functional impact on swallowing function. SLPs should be included in a multidisciplinary approach to head and neck cancer.

Survey of usual practice: dysphagia therapy in head and neck cancer patients

There is no standardized dysphagia therapy for head and neck cancer patients and scant evidence to support any particular protocol, leaving institutions and individual speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to determine their own protocols based on "typical" practices or anecdotal evidence. To gain an understanding of current usual practices, a national internet-based survey was developed and disseminated to SLPs who treat head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. From a random sample of 4,000 ASHA SID13 members, 1,931 fit the inclusion criteria, and 759 complete responses were recorded for a 39.3 % response rate. Results were analyzed by institution type as well as by individual clinical experience. While some interesting trends emerged from the data, a lack of uniformity and consensus regarding best practices was apparent. This is undoubtedly due to a paucity of research adequately addressing the efficacy of any one therapy for dysphagia in the HNC population.

Prophylactic feeding tubes for patients with locally advanced head-and-neck cancer undergoing combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy-systematic review and recommendations for clinical practice

GOALS

This work aimed to determine the benefits and risks of prophylactic feeding tubes for adult patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who receive combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy with curative intent and to make recommendations on the use of prophylactic feeding tubes and the provision of adequate nutrition to this patient population.

METHODS

A national multidisciplinary panel conducted a systematic review of the evidence and formulated recommendations to guide clinical decision-making. The draft evidence summary and recommendations were distributed to clinicians across Canada for their input.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomized controlled trials have directly addressed this question. Evidence from studies in the target population was limited to seven descriptive studies: two with control groups (one prospective, one retrospective) and five without control groups. Results from ten controlled studies in patients treated with radiotherapy alone were also reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence was insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of prophylactic feeding tubes in the target patient population or to support an evidence-based practice guideline. After review of the evidence, of guidelines from other groups, and of current clinical practice in Canada, the multidisciplinary panel made consensus-based recommendations regarding comprehensive interdisciplinary clinical care before, during, and after cancer treatment. The recommendations are based on the expert opinion of the panel members and on their understanding of best clinical practice.

Does PEG use cause dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients?

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) use is common in patients who undergo radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer to maintain weight and nutrition during treatment. However, the true effect of PEG use on weight maintenance and its potential impact on long-term dysphagia outcomes have not been adequately studied. This retrospective study looked at swallowing-related outcomes among patients who received prophylactic PEG vs. those who did not, and among patients who maintained oral diets vs. partial oral diets vs. those who were nil per os (NPO). Outcomes were assessed at the end of RT and at 3, 6, and 12 months post RT. A comprehensive review of patients' medical charts for a 6-year period yielded 59 subjects with complete data. Results showed no difference in long-term percent weight change between the prophylactic PEG patients vs. all others, or between patients who, during RT, had oral diets vs. partial oral diets vs. NPO. However, those who did not receive prophylactic PEGs and those who maintained an oral or a partial oral diet during RT had significantly better diet outcomes at all times post RT. Dependence on a PEG may lead to adverse swallowing ability in post-irradiated head and neck cancer patients possibly due to decreased use of the swallowing musculature.

Clinical outcome after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children with malignancies

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEG) are little-used in pediatric oncology. We evaluated complications and efficacy of PEGs in children with malignancies in a retrospective case series. Outcome measures were infection and weight gain. Sixteen PEGs were inserted in 14 patients (mean age 10.3 years; SD 5.6). Sixteen wound infections occurred in nine children (3.7 episodes/1,000 days). Mean weight-for-age z-score fell from diagnosis to PEG placement (-0.68 (SD 1.2) to -1.32 (SD 1.26); P < 0.001) but stabilized afterward. Two (12%) were removed early. PEG placement reversed early weight loss and infectious complications did not usually lead to early PEG removal.

Different experiences and perspectives between head and neck cancer patients and their care-givers on their daily impact of a gastrostomy tube

BACKGROUND

Gastrostomy feeding in head and neck cancer patients is recognised standard practice in some cancer centres with beneficial effects on outcomes for appropriately selected patients. However, the impact on patients and care-givers needs consideration. The present study aimed to understand the daily impact of gastrostomy feeding on head and neck cancer patients and their care-givers to identify improvements to services.

METHODS

Twenty-one adult patients were randomly selected from the Head and Neck centre at University College London Hospital. Six head and neck cancer patients and three care-givers participated in focus groups. The sessions were recorded, fully transcribed and qualitatively thematically analysed, and the resulting data were tabulated.

RESULTS

Patients and care-givers expressed opposite experiences within knowledge and understanding of why the tube was necessary; their personal perceptions and objectives of nutritional support. Themes expressing similar experiences included: developing positive coping strategies; preventing nutritional decline; tube dependency; dentures; finance; active care; and psychological support. Furthermore, both groups expressed the benefits of retaining a support network for rehabilitation with the hospital-based specialist team. Also patients and carers recognised that the gastrostomy tube helped patient survival and, with timely dietetic management, helped them wean off the tube reliance with more confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential that patients and care-givers attend pretreatment clinics to discuss nutritional support via the artificial route; their quality of life can be enhanced if guided through a specialist support pathway based at the clinical site where they initiated their care, with links to key agencies.

Artificial nutrition and hydration at the end of life

Considerable controversy surrounds the issue of care at the end of life (EOL) for older adults. Technological advances and the legal, ethical, clinical, religious, cultural, personal, and fiscal considerations in the provision of artificial hydration and nutrition support to older adults near death are presented in this comprehensive review.

Nutritional interventions for cancer-induced cachexia

Cancer-induced cachexia remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer treatment. Cancer research and development continues at an aggressive pace and yet a degree of cancer-induced cachexia is experienced by up to 80% of advanced stage cancer patients. Unfortunately, there are no established treatment regimens for this condition. Weight loss and fatigue consistently appear in patient oncologic histories and progress notes. However, few oncologists fully understand the pathologic mechanisms causing cachexia resulting in well-meaning advice to increase caloric intake with minimal results. Our goal is to describe the pathologic basis of cancer-induced cachexia and to detail accompanying metabolic derangements. Understanding the causes of cachexia sheds light on the subsequent need for multi-modality therapy including clinical intervention with specialized nutrition support, drug therapy, lifestyle and diet changes. In addition to nutrition support modalities, practicing oncologists may prescribe medical therapies designed to increase body weight and lean body mass, including megestrol acetate, tetrahydrocannibinol, oxandrolone, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A variety of experimental therapies are also being investigated for cancer-induced cachexia including tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and ghrelin infusions. We review the available data to support nutrition-oriented interventions in cancer-induced cachexia, including omega-3 fatty acids, amino-acid loading/protein supplementation, parenteral and enteral nutrition support, and food-derived compounds such as curcumin, reservatrol, and pomegranate.

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.

Outcomes after the use of gastrostomy tubes in patients whose head and neck cancer was managed with radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of continued oral intake and duration of gastrostomy tube placement on posttreatment nutritional outcomes in patients being irradiated for head and neck cancer.

METHODS

Factors associated with continued oral intake and its association with posttreatment outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with no oral intake (39.6% of 91) were more likely to have laryngeal tumors, advanced disease, and pretreatment gastrostomy tube placement. Of the 55 patients whose gastrostomy tubes had been removed, those with continued oral intake and shorter gastrostomy tube placement were more likely to maintain their weight and report eating scores in the higher-functioning category, but have more restricted diets. Observed survival was significantly better for the continued-oral-intake group (p = .001).

CONCLUSION

The beneficial effects of continued oral intake and shorter gastrostomy tube placement on posttreatment outcomes shown in this study suggest that clinicians involved in these patients' care should emphasize oral intake during treatment.

Use of gastrostomy in head and neck cancer: a systematic review to identify areas for future research

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of studies, which investigate the role of gastrostomy tube feeding in head and neck squamous cell cancer.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the English literature, identifying areas of clinical equipoise and recommendations for future studies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Varying practices in G-tube use in HNSCC, the benefits and disadvantages of G-tubes, the effect of G-tube placement on multidimensional outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer, including quality of life and health economics and to draw themes that may lend themselves to future research.

RESULTS

The search identified 216 articles of which 59 were considered relevant. During treatment, a significant number of patients need enteral nutritional supplementation through nasogastric or G-tubes. Gastrostomy tubes have a good safety profile. Most clinicians agree that the use should be restricted to advanced tumours. Studies on prophylactic insertion of G-tubes do not show a consistent advantage to the nutritional status compared with NG tubes. At 1 year, G-tube retention rates vary between 10% and 30%. The presence of a feeding tube has a negative impact on quality of life. Placing G-tubes may have an adverse effect on swallowing after chemoradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus among clinicians about indications for placing G-tubes. There is sufficient equipoise in this area for further investigation of the effect of varying feeding practices on functional outcomes, quality of life and health economics.

Enteral feeding methods for nutritional management in patients with head and neck cancers being treated with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

For many patients with head and neck cancer, oral nutrition will not provide adequate nourishment during treatment with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy due to the acute toxicity of treatment, obstruction caused by the tumour, or both. The optimal method of enteral feeding for this patient group has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different enteral feeding methods used in the nutritional management of patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy using the clinical outcomes, nutritional status, quality of life and rates of complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our extensive search included the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and ISI Web of Science. The date of the most recent search was May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing one method of enteral feeding with another, e.g. nasogastric (NG) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, for adult patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

One randomised controlled trial was eligible for inclusion in this review. However, a high degree of bias was identified in the study.Patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer, being treated with chemoradiotherapy, were randomised to PEG or NG feeding. In total only 33 patients were eligible for analysis as the trial was terminated early due to poor accrual.Weight loss was greater for the NG group at six weeks post-treatment than for the PEG group (P = 0.001). At six months post-treatment, however, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. Anthropometric measurements recorded six weeks post-treatment demonstrated lower triceps skin fold thickness for the NG group compared to the PEG group (P = 0.03). No statistically significant difference was found between the two different enteral feeding techniques in relation to complication rates or patient satisfaction. The duration of PEG feeding was significantly longer than for the NG group (P = 0.0006). In addition, the study calculated the cost of PEG feeding to be 10 times greater than that of NG, though this was not found to be significant. There was no difference in the treatment received by the two groups. However, four PEG fed patients and two NG fed patients required unscheduled treatment breaks of a median of two and six days respectively.We identified no studies of enteral feeding involving any form of radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) feeding or comparing prophylactic PEG versus PEG for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not sufficient evidence to determine the optimal method of enteral feeding for patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy. Further trials of the two methods of enteral feeding, incorporating larger sample sizes, are required.