Gastrostomy dependency trends over 15 years of patients at a large tertiary referral center following the insertion of a prophylactic gastrostomy for chemoradiation for mucosal head and neck cancer.

AIM: The routine use of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes for nutrition support during radical chemoradiation for head and neck cancer has been suggested to result in PEG dependency. This research aimed to determine the rates of gastrostomy dependency at the Calvary Mater Newcastle (CMN) where PEGs are routinely used and to identify potentially modifiable risk factors. METHODS: All patients with head and neck cancer planned for curative chemoradiation with a prophylactic PEG inserted were included in this review. Medical records of 250 patients treated between 2000 and 2015 were examined. RESULTS: Overall, eight patients (3%) were unable to wean. At 12 months following treatment, 16 patients (6%) still required PEG tubes for feeding. A greater T extent (T4 or synchronous head and neck tumors) and number of days Nil By Mouth (NBM) remained as significant independent risk factors for PEG dependency at 12 months (Textent OR 6.96 P < .001; NBM OR 1.01 P = .004) and overall (Textent OR8.04 P = .02; NBM OR1.01 P = .001). Associations with NBM were investigated, which demonstrated that patients had less NBM days with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (ß-13.3, P = .007) and seeing a speech pathologist during treatment (ß-11.9, P = .026). More NBM days were associated with tumors with greater T extent (ß+22; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The routine use of prophylactic PEGs has not resulted in significant rates of PEG dependency at the CMN. Seeing a speech pathologist during treatment and IMRT may decrease time NBM, which was identified as a potentially modifiable risk factor for PEG dependency.

Baseline depression predicts malnutrition in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Poor nutritional status is common and associated with mortality and morbidity in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). While there are several established clinical risk factors for poor nutritional status during HNC radiotherapy, the complete aetiology is not known. The association of malnutrition with psychological factors has been recognised in other chronic illnesses but has not been studied in HNC patients who have higher levels of malnutrition and psychological disorder than many other patient populations. METHOD: Patients with HNC were assessed at three time points: week 1 of radiotherapy treatment (T1, n = 72), end of radiotherapy treatment (T2, n = 64) and 4 weeks post-radiotherapy treatment (T3, n = 58). Nutritional outcome was measured using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment, and psychological factors measured were depression, anxiety and adjustment style. RESULTS: Linear mixed models indicated that a model containing the variables time, tumour site and baseline depression best explained malnutrition at T2 and T3 (-2 restricted log likelihood = 695.42). The clinical risk factors: cancer stage, number of radiotherapy fractionations, a PEG feeding tube, availability of a care giver and dietitian's informal clinical assessment did not predict later nutritional status. CONCLUSIONS: Depression is a modifiable risk factor for malnutrition among HNC patients undergoing radiation therapy, offering the potential to ameliorate malnutrition in this group. While the nature of any causal relationship between depression and malnutrition in HNC is yet to be understood, the utility of a short depression screen in predicting malnutrition has been demonstrated and could be adopted in clinical practice.