1
|
Luke ND, Cardenas P, Phillip C, Mohammad R, Raza A. Isolated Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Site Metastasis From Hypopharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cureus 2022; 14:e29123. [PMID: 36258945 PMCID: PMC9560571 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC) is a relatively uncommon malignancy due to the human papillomavirus or environmental factors such as excessive alcohol or tobacco use. Its most common metastatic locations are the lungs, bone, and liver. We are reporting a much more exceedingly rare site, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) site. HNSCC metastases and recurrences are commonly seen; however, they present complex challenges to manage successfully. Our presenting patient had an initial diagnosis of hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma and then developed an isolated metachronous metastatic tumor at the site of his gastrostomy tract approximately one year later.
Collapse
|
2
|
Siu J, Fuller K, Nadler A, Pugash R, Cohen L, Deutsch K, Enepekides D, Karam I, Husain Z, Chan K, Singh S, Poon I, Higgins K, Xu B, Eskander A. Metastasis to gastrostomy sites from upper aerodigestive tract malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91:1005-1014.e17. [PMID: 31926149 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.12.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2019] [Accepted: 12/26/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Metastasis to the gastrostomy site in patients with upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) malignancies is a rare but devastating adverse event that has been poorly described. Our aim was to determine the overall incidence and clinicopathologic characteristics observed with development of gastrostomy site metastasis in patients with UADT cancers. METHODS This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6138 studies retrieved from Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register after being queried for studies including gastrostomy site metastasis in patients with UADT malignancies. RESULTS The final analysis included 121 studies. Pooled analysis showed an overall event rate gastrostomy site metastasis of .5% (95% confidence interval [CI], .4%-.7%). Subgroup analysis showed an event rate of .56% (95% CI, .40%-.79%) with the pull technique and .29% (95% CI, .15%-.55%) with the push technique. Clinicopathologic characteristics observed with gastrostomy site metastasis were late-stage disease (T3/T4) (57.8%), positive lymph node status (51.2%), and no evidence of systemic disease (M0) (62.8%) at initial presentation. The average time from gastrostomy placement to diagnosis of metastasis was 7.78 ± 4.9 months, average tumor size on detection was 4.65 cm (standard deviation, 2.02), and average length of survival was 7.26 months (standard deviation, 6.23). CONCLUSIONS Gastrostomy site metastasis is a rare but serious adverse event that occurs at an overall rate of .5%, particularly in patients with advanced-stage disease, and is observed with a very poor prognosis. These findings emphasize a need for clinical practice guidelines to include a regular assessment of the PEG site and highlight the importance of detection and management of gastrostomy site metastasis by the multidisciplinary care oncology team.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Siu
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Cancer Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kaitlin Fuller
- Gerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto Libraries, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ashlie Nadler
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robyn Pugash
- Vascular/Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lawrence Cohen
- Division of Gastroenterology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Konrado Deutsch
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Cancer Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Danny Enepekides
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Cancer Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Head & Neck Surgical Oncology, University of Toronto, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Irene Karam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zain Husain
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kelvin Chan
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Toronto, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Canada
| | - Simron Singh
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Toronto, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ian Poon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kevin Higgins
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Cancer Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Head & Neck Surgical Oncology, University of Toronto, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Bin Xu
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Antoine Eskander
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Cancer Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Head & Neck Surgical Oncology, University of Toronto, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Michael Garron Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Science, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Strijbos D, Keszthelyi D, Gilissen LPL, Lacko M, Hoeijmakers JGJ, van der Leij C, de Ridder RJJ, de Haan MW, Masclee AAM. Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7:E1487-E1495. [PMID: 31673622 PMCID: PMC6811353 DOI: 10.1055/a-0953-1524] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2018] [Accepted: 02/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and study aims Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are techniques used for long-term enteral feeding. Our primary aim was to analyze procedure-related and 30-day mortality and complications between PEG and PRG in relation to indications. Patients and methods A single-center retrospective analysis was performed thath included all adult patients receiving initial PEG (January 2008 until April 2016) and PRG (January 2010 until April 2016). Outcomes were mortality (procedure-related, 30-day), complications (early (≤ 30 days) and late) and success rates. Results A total of 760 procedures (469 PRG and 291 PEG) were analyzed. Most common indications were head and neck cancer (HNC), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Success rates for placement were 91.2 % for PEG and 97.1 % for PRG ( P = 0.001). Procedure-related mortality was 1.7 % in PEG and 0.4 % in PRG ( P = 0.113). The 30-day mortality was 10.7 % in PEG and 5.1 % in PRG ( P = 0.481 after multivariate logistic regression) CVA was associated with higher 30-day mortality, whereas ALS, higher body weight, and prophylactic placements in HNC were associated with lower rates. Tube-related complications were less frequent in PEG, both early (2.7 % vs. 26.4 %, P ≤ 0.001) and late (8.6 % vs. 31.5 %, P ≤ 0.001). The percentage of major complications and infections did not differ. Conclusions With respect to procedure-related and 30-day mortality, PEG and PRG compare equally. PRG had a higher procedural success rate. Tube-related complications and pain are less frequent after PEG compared to PRG. The choice for either PEG or PRG therefore should primarily be based on local facilities and expertise.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denise Strijbos
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands,Corresponding author Denise Strijbos Maastricht University Medical CenterP. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HXMaastrichtthe Netherlands+31(0)402399751
| | - Daniel Keszthelyi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Lennard P. L. Gilissen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Martin Lacko
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Rogier J. J. de Ridder
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Michiel W. de Haan
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Ad A. M. Masclee
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rowell NP. Tumor implantation following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion for head and neck and oesophageal cancer: Review of the literature. Head Neck 2019; 41:2007-2015. [PMID: 30684284 DOI: 10.1002/hed.25652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2018] [Revised: 12/18/2018] [Accepted: 12/28/2018] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Because of publication bias, there is uncertainty about the true incidence of tumor seeding or implantation in patients with head and neck or oesophageal cancer undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion. METHODS In order to obtain a more reliable estimate of risk, a systematic review was undertaken. Randomized or non-randomized studies and case reports were identified by electronic searching. A risk of bias assessment was carried out for each study. RESULTS Ninety-eight cases from 74 published case reports and 1 unpublished case were identified. Synchronous distant metastases were present in 37%. Analysis of case series (6192 patients) considered to carry a moderate risk of bias suggests an incidence of seeding after PEG insertion of 0.32%. Studies carrying a lower risk of bias indicate a risk of seeding closer to 1 in 2000. CONCLUSION The true risk of seeding after PEG insertion is probably less than 1 in 1000.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas P Rowell
- Clinical Oncology, Kent Oncology Centre, Maidstone Hospital, Maidstone, Kent, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Outcomes and Complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Versus Radiologic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 52:753-764. [PMID: 29924079 DOI: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000001082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal technique for long-term enteral feeding has not yet been established. Both percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are widely used. Aim was to extensively review outcomes of PEG and PRG. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed, using standardized tools for assessing bias. Main outcomes were infectious and tube-related complications, procedure related and 30-day mortality. Pooled risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using random effects. Arcsine transformations were applied. RESULTS In total, 344 studies were identified, of which 16 were included, reporting on 934 PEGs and 1093 PRGs. No differences were found for infectious complications [RD, 0.03 (-0.05 to 0.11)], procedure-related mortality [RD, 0.01 (-0.04 to 0.06)], or 30-day mortality [RD, 0.06 (-0.01 to 0.13)]. Tube-related complications were higher in PRG [RD, 0.16 (0.06-0.26)]. Subgroup analysis was performed for head and neck cancer (HNC) and motor neuron disease. In HNC, this revealed significantly lower tube-related complications and procedure-related mortality after PEG. In motor neuron disease, no differences were seen. The level of evidence appears sufficient considering the low degree of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS No differences were found with regard to mortality or infectious complications. PEG showed lower risk of tube-related complications. Subgroup analysis revealed PEG to be favorable in HNC based on lower rates of procedure-related mortality and tube-related complications. Local experience and availability should be taken into account in the decision process.
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This review addresses current controversies regarding appropriate indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion. We address specific indications, namely, dementia, stroke, aspiration, motor neurone disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and head and neck cancer. We recommend practical strategies for improving patient selection. RECENT FINDINGS There is now a general consensus in the United States that PEG feeding does not benefit patients with advanced dementia. 'Early' PEG insertion following stroke is similarly of no benefit. It is currently unclear whether patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and head and neck tumors should have PEG or radiologically inserted gastrostomy. SUMMARY Decisions relating to PEG insertion remain difficult. The gastroenterologist, working as a member of a multidisciplinary nutrition team, needs to take a lead role in this regard, rather than functioning as a technician.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carthage Moran
- aDepartment of Medicine bDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland
| | | |
Collapse
|