Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation
Summary 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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 2008-10, Vol.52 (5), p.503-510 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 510 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 503 |
| container_title | Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology |
| container_volume | 52 |
| creator | Corry, J Poon, W McPhee, N Milner, AD Cruickshank, D Porceddu, SV Rischin, D Peters, LJ |
| description | Summary
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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69831466</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69831466</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-df9f937edf4fa37a49c52076c7a053928a5d792765028481cab7c804f28805cf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUc1u1DAQjhCI_sArIJ8QHLLYsRPbJ4QqKEXtFlYgjpbXGXe9TeLFdtpdXocXxemuyhUf7JG_nxnNVxSI4BnJ5916RhjDJWk4nVUYixnON51tnxTHhNeslEzUTx9rzo-KkxjXGDeEMPm8OCIS04pKcVz8Weih9b37DS2KaWx3yFu0gWDGpAfwY0SQ8Wj8xhl0o2MKPibf79AdhJjRQUf_8J3hNC4hIutD1iQIukMWoHXDDXIDWoFuUe6FBjC3yOjBQEAbnVzmRpQC6JRHuHdphd6YFfT-bdCty7gfXhTPrO4ivDy8p8WPTx-_n30uL6_PL84-XJaGYU7L1korKYfWMqsp10yausK8MVzjmspK6LrlsuJNjSvBBDF6yY3AzFZC4NpYelq83vtugv81Qkyqd9FA1-03oRopKGFNk4liTzR5GzGAVZvgeh12imA1BaTWagpITQGpKSD1EJDaZumrQ49x2UP7T3hIJBPe7wn3roPdfxurL1cXi-upzg7l3sHFBNtHBx1uVVbxWv2cn6vF1bf5VzqXitG__Siyrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69831466</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Corry, J ; Poon, W ; McPhee, N ; Milner, AD ; Cruickshank, D ; Porceddu, SV ; Rischin, D ; Peters, LJ</creator><creatorcontrib>Corry, J ; Poon, W ; McPhee, N ; Milner, AD ; Cruickshank, D ; Porceddu, SV ; Rischin, D ; Peters, LJ</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1754-9477</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1754-9485</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19032398</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melbourne, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - therapy ; chemoradiation ; Endoscopy, Digestive System - statistics & numerical data ; Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation ; Enteral Nutrition - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Gastrostomy - statistics & numerical data ; head and neck cancer ; Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; nasogastric tube ; Patient Satisfaction ; percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube ; Quality of Life ; randomized</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2008-10, Vol.52 (5), p.503-510</ispartof><rights>2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-df9f937edf4fa37a49c52076c7a053928a5d792765028481cab7c804f28805cf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-df9f937edf4fa37a49c52076c7a053928a5d792765028481cab7c804f28805cf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1440-1673.2008.02003.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1440-1673.2008.02003.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19032398$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Corry, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poon, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McPhee, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milner, AD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cruickshank, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porceddu, SV</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rischin, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, LJ</creatorcontrib><title>Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation</title><title>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</title><addtitle>J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol</addtitle><description>Summary
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.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - therapy</subject><subject>chemoradiation</subject><subject>Endoscopy, Digestive System - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastrostomy - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>head and neck cancer</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>nasogastric tube</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>randomized</subject><issn>1754-9477</issn><issn>1754-9485</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUc1u1DAQjhCI_sArIJ8QHLLYsRPbJ4QqKEXtFlYgjpbXGXe9TeLFdtpdXocXxemuyhUf7JG_nxnNVxSI4BnJ5916RhjDJWk4nVUYixnON51tnxTHhNeslEzUTx9rzo-KkxjXGDeEMPm8OCIS04pKcVz8Weih9b37DS2KaWx3yFu0gWDGpAfwY0SQ8Wj8xhl0o2MKPibf79AdhJjRQUf_8J3hNC4hIutD1iQIukMWoHXDDXIDWoFuUe6FBjC3yOjBQEAbnVzmRpQC6JRHuHdphd6YFfT-bdCty7gfXhTPrO4ivDy8p8WPTx-_n30uL6_PL84-XJaGYU7L1korKYfWMqsp10yausK8MVzjmspK6LrlsuJNjSvBBDF6yY3AzFZC4NpYelq83vtugv81Qkyqd9FA1-03oRopKGFNk4liTzR5GzGAVZvgeh12imA1BaTWagpITQGpKSD1EJDaZumrQ49x2UP7T3hIJBPe7wn3roPdfxurL1cXi-upzg7l3sHFBNtHBx1uVVbxWv2cn6vF1bf5VzqXitG__Siyrw</recordid><startdate>200810</startdate><enddate>200810</enddate><creator>Corry, J</creator><creator>Poon, W</creator><creator>McPhee, N</creator><creator>Milner, AD</creator><creator>Cruickshank, D</creator><creator>Porceddu, SV</creator><creator>Rischin, D</creator><creator>Peters, LJ</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Asia</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200810</creationdate><title>Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation</title><author>Corry, J ; Poon, W ; McPhee, N ; Milner, AD ; Cruickshank, D ; Porceddu, SV ; Rischin, D ; Peters, LJ</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-df9f937edf4fa37a49c52076c7a053928a5d792765028481cab7c804f28805cf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - therapy</topic><topic>chemoradiation</topic><topic>Endoscopy, Digestive System - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastrostomy - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>head and neck cancer</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>nasogastric tube</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>randomized</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Corry, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poon, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McPhee, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milner, AD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cruickshank, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porceddu, SV</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rischin, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, LJ</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Corry, J</au><au>Poon, W</au><au>McPhee, N</au><au>Milner, AD</au><au>Cruickshank, D</au><au>Porceddu, SV</au><au>Rischin, D</au><au>Peters, LJ</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol</addtitle><date>2008-10</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>503</spage><epage>510</epage><pages>503-510</pages><issn>1754-9477</issn><eissn>1754-9485</eissn><abstract>Summary
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.</abstract><cop>Melbourne, Australia</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Asia</pub><pmid>19032398</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1754-9477 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2008-10, Vol.52 (5), p.503-510 |
| issn | 1754-9477 1754-9485 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69831466 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Journals |
| subjects | Aged Aged, 80 and over Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - therapy chemoradiation Endoscopy, Digestive System - statistics & numerical data Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation Enteral Nutrition - statistics & numerical data Female Gastrostomy - statistics & numerical data head and neck cancer Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy Humans Male Middle Aged nasogastric tube Patient Satisfaction percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube Quality of Life randomized |
| title | Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T14%3A33%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomized%20study%20of%20percutaneous%20endoscopic%20gastrostomy%20versus%20nasogastric%20tubes%20for%20enteral%20feeding%20in%20head%20and%20neck%20cancer%20patients%20treated%20with%20(chemo)radiation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20imaging%20and%20radiation%20oncology&rft.au=Corry,%20J&rft.date=2008-10&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=503&rft.epage=510&rft.pages=503-510&rft.issn=1754-9477&rft.eissn=1754-9485&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69831466%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69831466&rft_id=info:pmid/19032398&rfr_iscdi=true |