Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation

Corry, J., Poon, W., McPhee, N., Milner, A. D., Cruickshank, D., Porceddu, S. V., Rischin, D. and Peters, L. J. (2008) Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 52 5: 503-510. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x


Author Corry, J.
Poon, W.
McPhee, N.
Milner, A. D.
Cruickshank, D.
Porceddu, S. V.
Rischin, D.
Peters, L. J.
Title Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation
Journal name Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0004-8461
1754-9485
Publication date 2008-10
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x
Volume 52
Issue 5
Start page 503
End page 510
Total pages 8
Place of publication Richmond, Vic., Australia
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Language eng
Abstract Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have largely replaced nasogastric tubes (NGT) for nutritional support of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative (chemo)radiotherapy without any good scientific basis. A randomized trial was conducted to compare PEG tubes and NGT in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, patient satisfaction and cost. The study was closed early because of poor accrual, predominantly due to patients’ reluctance to be randomized. There were 33 patients eligible for analysis. Nutritional support with both tubes was good. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates, chest infection rates or in patients’ assessment of their overall quality of life. The cost of a PEG tube was 10 times that of an NGT. The duration of use of PEG tubes was significantly longer, a median 139 days compared with a median 66 days for NGT. We found no evidence to support the routine use of PEG tubes over NGT in this patient group.
Keyword Chemoradiation
Head and neck cancer
Nasogastric tube
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 54 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 61 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 18 Apr 2012, 12:04:45 EST by System User on behalf of Medicine - Princess Alexandra Hospital