Impact of choice of feeding tubes on long-term swallow function following chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma.

Background: Prior reports have raised concerns that a prophylactic gastrostomy may be detrimental to long-term swallow function. This study evaluates patient-reported swallow function following chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma in relation to the use of a prophylactic gastrostomy or nasogastric (NG) tube as required. Material and methods: The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) was posted to 204 disease-free patients at least 2 years following chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma between 2010 and 2014. Results: Overall, 181/204 (89%) patients returned questionnaire at a median of 34 months post-treatment. 97/181 (54%) and 84/181 (46%) were managed with an approach of a prophylactic gastrostomy or NG tube as required, respectively. A prophylactic gastrostomy was associated with higher rates of enteral feeding (92% vs. 58%, p < .001), lower median percentage weight loss (7.0% vs. 9.4%, p < .001), increased duration of enteral feed (median 3.3 vs. 1.1 months, p < .001). There was no significant difference in patient-reported swallow function measured by MDADI summary scores and subscales for patients managed with an approach of prophylactic gastrostomy or NG as required. Duration of enteral feed correlated negatively with composite MDADI scores. A subgroup of 116/181 (64%) patients were documented as having been offered a choice of enteral feeding approach and therefore can be considered to represent clinical equipoise; there were no significant differences in MDADI scores according to route. Conclusions: Despite concern regarding the use of a prophylactic gastrostomy in prior studies, the approaches of using a prophylactic gastrostomy or an NG tube as required to support patients during/after chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma were associated with similar long-term swallow outcomes.

Patients' experience of enteral feeding following (chemo) radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Enteral feeding is commonly required during radiotherapy treatment for head and neck cancer. Only limited qualitative research into head and neck cancer patients' experiences of enteral tube feeding has been undertaken. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate patients' experiences of EF and the surrounding decision making process. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to face interviews were conducted with ten patients who had completed (chemo)radiotherapy/radiotherapy for head and neck cancer at a cancer centre in the North of England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Participants described the restrictions on daily living caused by enteral feeding tubes and enteral feeding. Despite these restrictions, participants recognised the value of the enteral feeding tube including its role in their survival and the importance of their involvement in decision making. Participants described coping mechanisms used to deal with the difficulties associated with enteral feeding. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide a unique qualitative insight into the lived experiences of H&N cancer patients managed with enteral feeding and the impact of the decision making process. The results have relevance for professionals supporting this patient group with enteral feeding.

Impact of prophylactic gastrostomy or reactive NG tube upon patient-reported long term swallow function following chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: A matched pair analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this matched pair analysis is to assess patient-reported long term swallow function following chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer in relation to the use of a prophylactic gastrostomy or reactive nasogastric (NG) tube. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) was posted to 68 consecutive patients with stage III/IV oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who had completed parotid sparing intensity modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy between 2010 and 2012, had not required therapeutic enteral feeding prior to treatment, minimum 2years follow up post treatment, and who were disease free. 59/68 replies were received, and a matched pair analysis (matching for T and N stage) was performed for 52 patients, 26 managed with a prophylactic gastrostomy and 26 with an approach of an NG tube as needed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient demographics, pre-treatment diet and treatment factors between the two groups. Patient-reported swallowing function measured using the MDADI was superior for patients managed with an NG tube as required compared with a prophylactic gastrostomy: overall composite score 68.1 versus 59.4 (p=0.04), global score 67.7 versus 60 (p=0.04), emotional subscale 73.5 versus 60.4 (p<0.01), functional subscale 75.4 versus 61.7 (p<0.01), and physical subscale 59.6 versus 57.1 (p=0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an approach of an NG tube as required, the use of a prophylactic gastrostomy was associated with inferior long term patient-reported long term swallow outcomes.

Enteral feeding outcomes after chemoradiotherapy for oropharynx cancer: a role for a prophylactic gastrostomy?

To determine the outcomes of patients managed with different routes of enteral feeding during chemoradiotherapy for oropharynx cancer. The hospital and dietetic records of consecutive patients with oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma treated between January 2007 and June 2009 with concurrent chemoradiotherapy were reviewed retrospectively. One hundred and four patients were analysed. Seventy-one received a prophylactic gastrostomy, 21 were managed with a strategy of NG tube as required and 12 received a therapeutic gastrostomy. Patients with a prophylactic gastrostomy commenced enteral feeding a median of 24 days after commencing radiotherapy, compared with a median of 41 days (p<0.001) for the NG as required group. Comparing prophylactic gastrostomy, NG as required and therapeutic gastrostomy, median number of unplanned inpatient days were 6, 14 and 7, respectively (p<0.01 for prophylactic gastrostomy vs. NG as required). Mean percentage weight loss at the end of treatment (6.1% vs. 7.1% vs. 5.2%, respectively) and at 6 months post-radiotherapy (11.7%, 14.3% and 8.9%) were similar in all groups (p=0.23). There was no significant difference in type of diet post-radiotherapy between prophylactic gastrostomy and NG as required groups (p=0.22). Median duration of enteral feeding was 181, 64 and 644 days, respectively (p<0.01 for prophylactic gastrostomy vs. NG as required). Use of a prophylactic gastrostomy (p<0.01) and higher T stage (p<0.01) were associated with increased duration of enteral feeding on a multivariate analysis. These data reinforce concerns regarding the detrimental impact of prophylactic gastrostomy placement upon long-term enteral feed dependence.