Tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy: A systematic review. Issue 6 (22nd May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bossola, Maurizio; Antocicco, Manuela; Pepe, Gilda
• Is Part Of: JPEN, Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. Volume 46:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: 1258
• Page End: 1269
• Publication Date: 2022-05-22
• Subjects: chemoradiotherapy -- enteral nutrition -- gastrostomy -- head and neck cancer -- malnutrition -- nasogastric tube -- nutrition -- prophylactic -- reactive -- tube feeding; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; 615.85484
• DOI: 10.1002/jpen.2360
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-6071

Abstract

Abstract: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are frequently malnourished at the time of diagnosis and before beginning treatment. In addition, chemoradiotherapy causes or exacerbates symptoms such as alteration or loss of taste, mucositis, xerostomia, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, with consequent worsening of malnutrition. If obstructing cancer and/or mucositis interferes with swallowing, enteral nutrition should be delivered by a nasogastric tube (NGT) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). To review studies comparing NGT's and PEG's nutrition outcomes, survival, hospitalizations, radiotherapy interruptions, quality of life, and swallowing function. Two hundred fifty publications were identified via electronic databases. 26 manuscripts that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis. We divided the analysis in two sections: (1) comparison of enteral nutrition through NGT or PEG and (2) comparison of reactive PEG (R‐PEG) and prophylactic PEG (P‐PEG). They have comparable nutrition outcomes, number of radiotherapy interruptions, survival, and quality of life, whereas swallow function seems better with NGT. PEG may be associated with major complications such as exit‐site infection, malfunction, leakage, pain, pulmonary infection, and higher costs. Nevertheless, NGTs dislodged more often; patients find NGTs more inconvenient; NGTs may cause aspiration pneumonia; P‐PEG and R‐PEG have similar nutrition outcomes, number of radiotherapy interruptions, and survival. PEG does not have better nutrition, oncologic, and quality‐of‐life outcomes than NGT. Prophylactic feeding through NGT or PEG, compared with reactive feeding, does not offer significant advantages in nutrition outcomes, radiotherapy interruptions, and survival. However, the number of prospective randomized studies on this topic is limited; consequently, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Further adequate, prospective randomized studies are needed.