Patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for head and neck cancers often require feeding tubes (FTs) due to toxicity. We sought to identify factors associated with a prolonged FT requirement.
We retrospectively reviewed 80 patients treated with CRT for head and neck cancers. The pharyngeal constrictors (PCs), supraglottic larynx (SGL), and glottic larynx (GL) were contoured and the mean radiation doses and the volumes of each receiving >40, 50, 60, and 70 Gy (V40, V50, V60, and V70) were determined.
A total of 33 of 80 patients required a FT either before or during the course of CRT. Fifteen patients required the FT for > or = 6 months. On univariate analysis, significant factors associated with a prolonged FT requirement were mean PC dose, PC-V60, PC-V70, SGL dose, SGL-V70, and advanced T3-T4 disease. Multivariate analyses found both PC-V70 and T3-T4 disease as significant factors .The proportions of patients requiring a FT > or = 6 months were 8% and 28% for treatment plans with PC-V70 <30% and > or = 30%, respectively.
Increased radiation dose to the PCs is associated with a higher risk of a prolonged FT need. Dose sparing of the PC muscles may reduce this risk.
"Head and neck cancer survivors with chronic aspiration following treatment may develop anxiety and depression because of social isolation, which may severely impact on their quality of life. Recent studies suggest a correlation between radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles and the risk of tube feeding dependence following head and neck radiotherapy , . New radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may decrease dysphagia severity and the need for gastrostomy tubes because of decreased radiation dose to critical structures for swallowing. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The study aims to assess the feasibility of Tomotherapy-based image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) to reduce the aspiration risk in patients with non-laryngeal and non-hypopharyngeal cancer. A retrospective review of 48 patients undergoing radiation for non-laryngeal and non-hypopharyngeal head and neck cancers was conducted. All patients had a modified barium swallow (MBS) prior to treatment, which was repeated one month following radiotherapy. Mean middle and inferior pharyngeal dose was recorded and correlated with the MBS results to determine aspiration risk.
Mean pharyngeal dose was 23.2 Gy for the whole group. Two patients (4.2%) developed trace aspiration following radiotherapy which resolved with swallowing therapy. At a median follow-up of 19 months (1-48 months), all patients were able to resume normal oral feeding without aspiration.
IGRT may reduce the aspiration risk by decreasing the mean pharyngeal dose in the presence of large cervical lymph nodes. Further prospective studies with IGRT should be performed in patients with non-laryngeal and non-hypopharyngeal head and neck cancers to verify this hypothesis.
PLoS ONE 03/2013; 8(3):e56290. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0056290 · 3.23 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Mucositis and dysphagia are common complications of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for head and neck cancer that may necessitate nutritional support with a gastrostomy tube (G-tube).
We reviewed records of patients who underwent and completed CRT, which included at least one traditional chemotherapeutic, for previously untreated head and neck cancer. G-tubes were placed as needed. The timing and duration of G-tube placement and treatment-related complications and risk factors for long-term G-tube use were analyzed.
A total of 91 consecutive patients who received CRT, 68 as primary and 23 as postoperative treatment, were studied. Radiation doses ranged from 59.4 to 74 Gy (median, 70 Gy). Seventy-nine percent of patients received platinum-based therapy during CRT. Severe mucositis occurred in 40% of patients. Forty percent of patients required G-tube placement (15 prior to CRT and 21 during CRT). Median duration of G-tube use was 5.8 months. Two patients who had a G-tube placed during CRT developed a G-tube-related complication. At 6 and 12 months, 15 (18%) and four (6%) patients who were disease free were using G-tubes, respectively. Patients with G-tubes placed prior to CRT or advanced T stage had longer G-tube dependence.
With aggressive supportive care it is feasible to avoid G-tubes in the majority of patients undergoing CRT for head and neck cancer. G-tube placement prior to CRT due to pre-existing dysphagia and advanced T stage are associated with prolonged G-tube dependence.
The Laryngoscope 01/2009; 120(1):71-5. DOI:10.1002/lary.20697 · 2.14 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: OBJETIVO: Analisar o impacto da terapia nutricional enteral na manutenção do peso corpóreo e na necessidade de replanejamento e/ou interrupção da radioterapia em pacientes com câncer de cabeça e pescoço submetidos a radioterapia de intensidade modulada (IMRT). MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Foram analisados, retrospectivamente, os pacientes submetidos a IMRT entre janeiro de 2005 e outubro de 2008, com a inclusão de 83 casos. RESULTADOS: A idade mediana foi de 58,6 anos. Em apenas em cinco pacientes (6%) houve interrupção do tratamento, que variou de 4 a 18 dias, e em 19 casos (23%) houve necessidade de replanejamento. A terapia nutricional enteral foi instituída antes do início da radioterapia em 16 pacientes (19%). Perda de peso > 5% ocorreu em 58 casos (70%), sendo mais prevalente no grupo de pacientes em que a terapia nutricional enteral não foi instituída pré-radioterapia. Na comparação entre os grupos não houve diferença significativa na realização de replanejamento (25% versus 21%; p = 0,741) ou na ocorrência e duração da interrupção da radioterapia. CONCLUSÃO: A terapia nutricional enteral tem um claro ganho na manutenção do peso corporal, porém, não houve um benefício na realização da gastrostomia percutânea endoscópica ou da sonda nasoenteral em relação à interrupção e ao replanejamento da radioterapia.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.