Conference Coverage

Effects of Feeding Tube Placement on Weight and Treatment Breaks in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Who Undergo Definitive Radiotherapy

Zhu A, Anderson B, Lister R, Cayabyab F, Chen G, Mai W.

Abstract 2: 2014 AVAHO Meeting


 

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of feeding tube placement on patient weight and length of treatment breaks during definitive radiotherapy with at least 50 Gy to the bilateral necks of patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer.

Methods: Thirty-five H&N cancer patients underwent definitive radiotherapy at the Radiation Oncology Department at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center from July 23, 2012 to April 25, 2013. Twenty-three patients received doses of ≥ 50 Gy to bilateral necks, and constituted the study group. The remaining 12 patients did not receive ≥ 50 Gy and were excluded from the study. Among the 23 patients, 11 underwent feeding tube placement (group 1). Group 2 consisted of 12 patients without feeding tubes. All patients with feeding tube placement had concurrent chemotherapy. Some patients in group 2 received radiation treatment only.

Results: Twenty-two patients had weight loss, 1 patient gained 6.9 lb during the course of treatment. The median weight loss for group 1 was 17.8 lb (ranging from 4.4 to 34.4 lb), compared with 18.6 lb in patients in group 2. Those in group 2 who only received radiation therapy had the least median weight loss (5.4 lb). The average treatment break was 3.3 days for patients in group 1, 3.7 days for those in group 2 with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (chemoRT), and 3.2 days for group 2 subjects receiving radiation therapy only.

Conclusions: In H&N cancer patients, feeding tube placement did not minimize weight loss and did not reduce average treatment breaks in those given concurrent chemoRT. An interesting additional finding of the study was that chemotherapy seems to have greater impact on a patient’s ability to tolerate radiation therapy. Our findings in this small, retrospective study, though suggestive, are insufficient to draw any definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of prophylactic feeding tube placement in the target patient population. Published studies on this subject are contradictory. Treatment decisions should be based on physician expertise and individualized to clinical needs of patients.

Recommended Reading

Second Primary Tumors and Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
AVAHO
Chemotherapy for Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
AVAHO
Guidelines for Thyroid Nodule Evaluation
AVAHO
Eruptive Collagenomas, Suprasellar Meningioma, and Elevated Prolactin in a Patient With a History of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
AVAHO
Comparison of Low-Dose Platinum vs High-Dose Platinum vs Cetuximab and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Advanced Head and Neck Cancers
AVAHO
Cisplatin Is Associated With Prolonged Progression-Free Survival Compared With Cetuximab Among Veteran Patients With Stage 3 And 4 Head and Neck Cancer
AVAHO
Incorporation of Palliative Care With Chemotherapy and Radiation in Patients Treated for Head and Neck Cancer
AVAHO
Incidence of Second Primary Malignancies in Patients Treated for Thyroid Cancer: A Review of 51 Cases
AVAHO