Population-based comparison of two feeding tube approaches for head and neck cancer patients receiving concurrent systemic–radiation therapy: is a prophylactic feeding tube approach harmful or helpful?

The purpose of this study is to compare patient outcomes between a therapeutic versus a prophylactic gastrostomy tube (GT) placement approach in patients treated with concurrent systemic and radiation (SRT) therapy for head and neck cancer (HNC).

Outcomes were compared between all HNC patients treated with concurrent SRT from January 2001 to June 2009 from a center that only places GTs therapeutically when clinically necessary (center A) versus a center that generally places them prophylactically (center B).

A total of 445 patients with HNC were identified, with 63 % from center A. As anticipated, GTs were placed less commonly in center A compared to B (31 versus 88 %; p < 0.001). Center B had a significantly higher number of GT complications (p < 0.001), including infection (16 versus 5 %), leakage (10 versus 2 %), and blockage (3 versus 1 %). Conversely, center A had a higher admission rate (27 versus 13 %, p = 0.001), most prominent for GT-related issues (15 versus 6 %). Center B had higher GT dependence at 90 days post-radiation therapy (34 versus 12 %; p < 0.001), but not at 1 year (11 versus 10 %; p = 0.74). There was no significant difference in the proportion of head and neck patients who had a 10 % weight loss at 1 year (compared to baseline) between centers A and B (42 versus 53 %, p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in the overall survival (A versus B, HR = 0.99; p = 0.96).

A prophylactic GT approach results in exposing higher number of patients to GT complications. The higher rate of hospitalizations using a therapeutic approach suggests that patients are sicker when GTs are required. Given the similar weight loss and survival, a therapeutic approach at an earlier stage of need may be a preferable approach, when access to prompt GT placement is available.