Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://aao-hnsfjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ohn.672 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- Revisiting Feeding Tube Utilization in Oropharynx Cancer: 6‐Year Prospective Registry Analysis Brady J. Anderson Amy C. Moreno Yun Qing J. Jack Lee Faye M. Johnson Miriam N. Lango Carly E. A. Barbon Lavanya Tripuraneni Ariana Sahli Vicki Piper Neil Gross Clifton D. Fuller Stephen Y. Lai Jeffrey N. Myers Katherine A. Hutcheson Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery AbstractObjectivePatients treated for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) have historically demonstrated high feeding tube rates for decreased oral intake and malnutrition. We re‐examined feeding tube practices in these patients.Study DesignRetrospective analysis of prospective cohort from 2015 to 2021.SettingSingle‐institution NCI‐Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.MethodsWith IRB approval, patients with new oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer or (unknown primary with neck metastasis) were enrolled. Baseline swallowing was assessed via videofluoroscopy and Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer (PSSHN). G‐tubes or nasogastric tubes (NGT) were placed for weight loss before, during, or after treatment. Prophylactic NGT were placed during transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Tube duration was censored at last disease‐free follow‐up. Multivariate regression was performed for G‐tube placement (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]) and removal (Cox hazard ratio, hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]).ResultsOf 924 patients, most had stage I to II (81%), p16+ (89%), node‐positive (88%) disease. Median follow‐up was 2.6 years (interquartile range 1.5‐3.9). Most (91%) received radiation/chemoradiation, and 16% received TORS. G‐tube rate was 27% (5% after TORS). G‐tube risk was increased with chemoradiation (OR 2.78 [1.87‐4.22]) and decreased with TORS (OR 0.31 [0.15‐0.57]) and PSSHN‐Diet score ≥60 (OR 0.26 [0.15‐0.45]). G‐tube removal probability over time was lower for T3 to T4 tumors (HR 0.52 [0.38‐0.71]) and higher for PSSHN‐Diet score ≥60 (HR 1.65 [1.03‐2.66]).ConclusionsIn this modern cohort of patients treated for OPC, 27% received G‐tubes—50% less than institutional rates 10 years ago. Patients with preserved baseline swallowing and/or those eligible for TORS may have lower G‐tube risk and duration. 10.1002/ohn.672 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor