Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review
There are two main enteral feeding strategies—namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy—used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optim...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of radiation research 2014-05, Vol.55 (3), p.559-567 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 567 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 559 |
| container_title | Journal of radiation research |
| container_volume | 55 |
| creator | Wang, Jinfeng Liu, Minjie Liu, Chao Ye, Yun Huang, Guanhong |
| description | There are two main enteral feeding strategies—namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy—used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optimal method for this patient group. To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous gastrostomy and NGT feeding in patients with HNC, relevant literature was identified through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane, Wiley and manual searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-experimental studies comparing percutaneous gastrostomy—including percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) —with NG for HNC patients. Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to the methodological quality of the individual studies. Data were then compared with respect to nutritional status, duration of feeding, complications, radiotherapy delays, disease-free survival and overall survival. Methodological quality of RCTs and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales. It became apparent from our studies that both feeding strategies have advantages and disadvantages. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jrr/rrt144 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4014167</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A536155055</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/jrr/rrt144</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A536155055</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c532t-ef2519828d846e9dbdafe64ed14af0dcebc2a009418634d71c12588595cebdcf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkl9rFDEUxYModq2--AEkIIII2yaTZCbjg1CK_6CgD_ocssnNbupMMiaZLfvkVzd1arEgSh4S7vndE3JzEHpKyQklPTu9TOk0pUI5v4dWlPF-3VPR3UcrwuuZkZYcoUc5XxLSdESQh-io4VwwJtoV-vEZkpmLDhDnjCHYmE2cvMFbnUuKucTxgPeQclWDzvFXucpl3gB2ANaHLXYx4UkXD6FkfOXLDu9AW6yDxQHMN2x0MJBeY43zIRcYK2pwgr2Hq8fogdNDhic3-zH6-u7tl_MP64tP7z-en12sjWBNWYNrBO1lI63kLfR2Y7WDloOlXDtiDWxMownpOZUt47ajhjZCStGLKlnj2DF6s_hO82aE2hBK0oOakh91OqiovbqrBL9T27hXnFBO264avLwxSPH7DLmo0WcDw7CMTtFOtrRtpZT_R0XDOJFE0oo-X9CtHkD54GK93Fzj6kywlgpBhKjUyV-ouiyM3sQAztf6nYZXS4OpX5gTuNuHUqKuM6NqZtSSmQo_-3M0t-jvkFTgxQLEefqX0U8FaM2u</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1523408081</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Wang, Jinfeng ; Liu, Minjie ; Liu, Chao ; Ye, Yun ; Huang, Guanhong</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jinfeng ; Liu, Minjie ; Liu, Chao ; Ye, Yun ; Huang, Guanhong</creatorcontrib><description>There are two main enteral feeding strategies—namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy—used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optimal method for this patient group. To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous gastrostomy and NGT feeding in patients with HNC, relevant literature was identified through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane, Wiley and manual searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-experimental studies comparing percutaneous gastrostomy—including percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) —with NG for HNC patients. Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to the methodological quality of the individual studies. Data were then compared with respect to nutritional status, duration of feeding, complications, radiotherapy delays, disease-free survival and overall survival. Methodological quality of RCTs and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales. It became apparent from our studies that both feeding strategies have advantages and disadvantages.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0449-3060</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1349-9157</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrt144</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24453356</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Cancer patients ; Care and treatment ; Causality ; Comorbidity ; Endoscopes ; Enteral Nutrition - mortality ; Feeding ; Female ; Food and nutrition ; Gastroscopy - mortality ; Gastrostomy - mortality ; Head and neck cancer ; Head and Neck Neoplasms - mortality ; Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy ; Humans ; Intubation, Gastrointestinal - mortality ; Male ; Malnutrition - mortality ; Malnutrition - prevention & control ; Necks ; Oncology ; Patients ; Radiotherapy ; Risk Factors ; Searching ; Survival ; Survival Rate ; Treatment Outcome ; Tubes</subject><ispartof>Journal of radiation research, 2014-05, Vol.55 (3), p.559-567</ispartof><rights>The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology. 2014</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Oxford University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c532t-ef2519828d846e9dbdafe64ed14af0dcebc2a009418634d71c12588595cebdcf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c532t-ef2519828d846e9dbdafe64ed14af0dcebc2a009418634d71c12588595cebdcf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014167/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014167/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1604,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24453356$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jinfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Minjie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Chao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Yun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Guanhong</creatorcontrib><title>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review</title><title>Journal of radiation research</title><addtitle>J Radiat Res</addtitle><description>There are two main enteral feeding strategies—namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy—used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optimal method for this patient group. To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous gastrostomy and NGT feeding in patients with HNC, relevant literature was identified through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane, Wiley and manual searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-experimental studies comparing percutaneous gastrostomy—including percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) —with NG for HNC patients. Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to the methodological quality of the individual studies. Data were then compared with respect to nutritional status, duration of feeding, complications, radiotherapy delays, disease-free survival and overall survival. Methodological quality of RCTs and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales. It became apparent from our studies that both feeding strategies have advantages and disadvantages.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer patients</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Causality</subject><subject>Comorbidity</subject><subject>Endoscopes</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - mortality</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Food and nutrition</subject><subject>Gastroscopy - mortality</subject><subject>Gastrostomy - mortality</subject><subject>Head and neck cancer</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms - mortality</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - mortality</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Malnutrition - mortality</subject><subject>Malnutrition - prevention & control</subject><subject>Necks</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiotherapy</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Searching</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Survival Rate</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Tubes</subject><issn>0449-3060</issn><issn>1349-9157</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkl9rFDEUxYModq2--AEkIIII2yaTZCbjg1CK_6CgD_ocssnNbupMMiaZLfvkVzd1arEgSh4S7vndE3JzEHpKyQklPTu9TOk0pUI5v4dWlPF-3VPR3UcrwuuZkZYcoUc5XxLSdESQh-io4VwwJtoV-vEZkpmLDhDnjCHYmE2cvMFbnUuKucTxgPeQclWDzvFXucpl3gB2ANaHLXYx4UkXD6FkfOXLDu9AW6yDxQHMN2x0MJBeY43zIRcYK2pwgr2Hq8fogdNDhic3-zH6-u7tl_MP64tP7z-en12sjWBNWYNrBO1lI63kLfR2Y7WDloOlXDtiDWxMownpOZUt47ajhjZCStGLKlnj2DF6s_hO82aE2hBK0oOakh91OqiovbqrBL9T27hXnFBO264avLwxSPH7DLmo0WcDw7CMTtFOtrRtpZT_R0XDOJFE0oo-X9CtHkD54GK93Fzj6kywlgpBhKjUyV-ouiyM3sQAztf6nYZXS4OpX5gTuNuHUqKuM6NqZtSSmQo_-3M0t-jvkFTgxQLEefqX0U8FaM2u</recordid><startdate>20140501</startdate><enddate>20140501</enddate><creator>Wang, Jinfeng</creator><creator>Liu, Minjie</creator><creator>Liu, Chao</creator><creator>Ye, Yun</creator><creator>Huang, Guanhong</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</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><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140501</creationdate><title>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review</title><author>Wang, Jinfeng ; Liu, Minjie ; Liu, Chao ; Ye, Yun ; Huang, Guanhong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c532t-ef2519828d846e9dbdafe64ed14af0dcebc2a009418634d71c12588595cebdcf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer patients</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Causality</topic><topic>Comorbidity</topic><topic>Endoscopes</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - mortality</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Food and nutrition</topic><topic>Gastroscopy - mortality</topic><topic>Gastrostomy - mortality</topic><topic>Head and neck cancer</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms - mortality</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - mortality</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Malnutrition - mortality</topic><topic>Malnutrition - prevention & control</topic><topic>Necks</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiotherapy</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Searching</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Survival Rate</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Tubes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jinfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Minjie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Chao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Yun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Guanhong</creatorcontrib><collection>Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection)</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><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of radiation research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Jinfeng</au><au>Liu, Minjie</au><au>Liu, Chao</au><au>Ye, Yun</au><au>Huang, Guanhong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Journal of radiation research</jtitle><addtitle>J Radiat Res</addtitle><date>2014-05-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>55</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>559</spage><epage>567</epage><pages>559-567</pages><issn>0449-3060</issn><eissn>1349-9157</eissn><abstract>There are two main enteral feeding strategies—namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy—used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optimal method for this patient group. To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous gastrostomy and NGT feeding in patients with HNC, relevant literature was identified through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane, Wiley and manual searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-experimental studies comparing percutaneous gastrostomy—including percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) —with NG for HNC patients. Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to the methodological quality of the individual studies. Data were then compared with respect to nutritional status, duration of feeding, complications, radiotherapy delays, disease-free survival and overall survival. Methodological quality of RCTs and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales. It became apparent from our studies that both feeding strategies have advantages and disadvantages.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>24453356</pmid><doi>10.1093/jrr/rrt144</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0449-3060 |
| ispartof | Journal of radiation research, 2014-05, Vol.55 (3), p.559-567 |
| issn | 0449-3060 1349-9157 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4014167 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Cancer Cancer patients Care and treatment Causality Comorbidity Endoscopes Enteral Nutrition - mortality Feeding Female Food and nutrition Gastroscopy - mortality Gastrostomy - mortality Head and neck cancer Head and Neck Neoplasms - mortality Head and Neck Neoplasms - therapy Humans Intubation, Gastrointestinal - mortality Male Malnutrition - mortality Malnutrition - prevention & control Necks Oncology Patients Radiotherapy Risk Factors Searching Survival Survival Rate Treatment Outcome Tubes |
| title | Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T17%3A38%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Percutaneous%20endoscopic%20gastrostomy%20versus%20nasogastric%20tube%20feeding%20for%20patients%20with%20head%20and%20neck%20cancer:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20radiation%20research&rft.au=Wang,%20Jinfeng&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=559&rft.epage=567&rft.pages=559-567&rft.issn=0449-3060&rft.eissn=1349-9157&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jrr/rrt144&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA536155055%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1523408081&rft_id=info:pmid/24453356&rft_galeid=A536155055&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jrr/rrt144&rfr_iscdi=true |