Recommended Citation
Coke A, Gilbert M, Hill S, and Siddiqui F. Nasogastric Feeding Tube/Dobhoff Placement: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Malnutrition During Radiation Therapy in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer. Cureus 2022; 14(5):e24905.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
5-1-2022
Publication Title
Cureus
Abstract
Background: Radiation therapy (RT)-associated oral mucositis, xerostomia, thick mucoid saliva, nausea/vomiting, and loss of taste may result in significantly compromised oral intake in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers (HNC). Feeding tube placement allows patients to receive enteral nutrition and continue the planned course of treatment.
Objectives: RT-associated oral mucositis, xerostomia, and loss of taste may result in significantly compromised oral intake in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers. We sought to determine if reactive nasogastric (NG) tube placement was an effective strategy for nutritional support in these patients and if invasive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion could be avoided.
Methods: This is an institutional review board (IRB)-approved study of patients treated for head and neck cancer using definitive or adjuvant RT with or without concurrent chemotherapy between June 2017 and December 2020. We evaluated the indications for NG tube (Dobhoff) placement, time of placement during the course of RT, patient tolerance of NG tube, and median duration of NG tube placement. In addition, we followed weight loss during treatment, treatment interruptions, and treatment-related toxicities. Complications associated with having the NG tube, if the NG tube needed to be replaced during treatment, and if the patient had any hospitalization during the course of treatment were tracked.
Results: Of the 441 patients treated for head and neck cancer during the time period of this study, 47 required reactive NG tube placement for nutritional support. Patients included 40 with primary oropharynx, three with oral cavity, two with larynx, one with nasopharyngeal, and one was unknown. Chemotherapy was given concurrently with radiation in 87.2% (n=41) patients. The median time of NG tube placement was during Week 5 of the six to seven-week course of RT. The median percentage of weight loss from baseline to the date of NG tube placement was 12.9% (range, -0.9% to 25.9%). The median rate of weight loss decreased by 8.7% from the date of NG tube placement to the end of treatment. The median duration of NG tube placement was 29 days (range, 5 to 151 days). There were no serious medical complications associated with having the NG tube in place during treatment. Twenty-seven point six percent (27.6%; n=13) of patients had the NG tube dislodged or displaced and needed replacement. Thirty-eight point three percent (38.3%; n=18) of patients with an NG tube had to be hospitalized during the course of RT, with the predominant symptoms being failure to thrive (22.2%; n=4) and nausea/vomiting 22.2% (n=4). Six point four percent (6.4%; n=3) of patients requested the removal of the NG tube due to local irritation. Seventy-six point six percent (76.6%; n=36) of patients did not require further nutritional support with the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube.
Conclusion: This study indicates that clinic placement of an NG tube for patients receiving RT for head and neck cancer is a safe and effective way to maintain nutrition during treatment. The rate of weight loss decreased after the patient had an NG tube placed. The placement procedure is well-tolerated and there were no complications associated with having the NG tube during treatment. PEG tube insertion was avoided in approximately 80% of the patients.
PubMed ID
35698672
Volume
14
Issue
5
First Page
24905
Last Page
24905
