Enteral feeding methods for nutritional management in patients with head and neck cancers being treated with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy

Background: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2010.
For many patients with head and neck cancer, oral nutrition will not provide adequate nourishment during treatment with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy due to the acute toxicity of treatment, obstruction caused by the tumour, or both. The optimal method of enteral feeding for this patient group has yet to be established.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of different enteral feeding methods used in the nutritional management of patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy using the clinical outcomes, nutritional status, quality of life and rates of complications.

Search methods: Our extensive search included the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and ISI Web of Science. The date of the most recent search was 13 February 2012.

Selection criteria:Randomised controlled trials comparing one method of enteral feeding with another, e.g. nasogastric (NG) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, for adult patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy.

Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted study authors for additional information.

Main results: One randomised controlled trial met the criteria for inclusion in this review. No further studies were identified when we updated the searches in 2012.
Patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer, being treated with chemoradiotherapy, were randomised to PEG or NG feeding. In total only 33 patients were eligible for analysis as the trial was terminated early due to poor accrual. A high degree of bias was identified in the study.
Weight loss was greater for the NG group at six weeks post-treatment than for the PEG group (P = 0.001). At six months post-treatment, however, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. Anthropometric measurements recorded six weeks post-treatment demonstrated lower triceps skin fold thickness for the NG group compared to the PEG group (P = 0.03). No statistically significant difference was found between the two different enteral feeding techniques in relation to complication rates or patient satisfaction. The duration of PEG feeding was significantly longer than for the NG group (P = 0.0006). In addition, the study calculated the cost of PEG feeding to be 10 times greater than that of NG, though this was not found to be significant. There was no difference in the treatment received by the two groups. However, four PEG fed patients and two NG fed patients required unscheduled treatment breaks of a median of two and six days respectively.
We identified no studies of enteral feeding involving any form of radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) feeding or comparing prophylactic PEG versus PEG for inclusion in the review.

Authors' conclusions: There is not sufficient evidence to determine the optimal method of enteral feeding for patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy. Further trials of the two methods of enteral feeding, incorporating larger sample sizes, are required.

Human papillomavirus related head and neck cancer survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) are reported to have improved prognosis and survival in comparison to other head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs). This systematic review and meta-analysis examines survival differences in HPV-positive HNSCC and OPSCC subtypes including tonsillar carcinoma in studies not previously investigated. Four electronic databases were searched from their inception till April 2011. A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool study estimates evaluating disease-specific (death from HNSCC), overall (all-cause mortality), progression-free and disease-free (recurrence free) survival outcomes in HPV-positive vs. HPV-negative HNSCCs. All statistical tests were two-sided. Forty-two studies were included. Patients with HPV-positive HNSCC had a 54% better overall survival compared to HPV-negative patients HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.37-0.57); the pooled HR for tonsillar cancer and OPSCC was 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.77) and HR 0.47 (95% CI 0.35-0.62) respectively. The pooled HR for disease specific survival was 0.28 (95% CI 0.19-0.40); similar effect sizes were found irrespective of the adjustment for confounders, HPV detection methods or study location. Both progression-free survival and disease-free survival were significantly improved in HPV-positive HNSCCs. HPV-positive HNSCCs and OPSCCs patients have a significantly lower disease specific mortality and are less likely to experience progression or recurrence of their cancer than HPV-negative patients; findings which have connotations for treatment selection in these patients.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and aspirin use and the risk of head and neck cancer

Background: Evidence for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) preventing head and neck cancer (HNC) is inconclusive; however, there is some suggestion that aspirin may exert a protective effect.

Methods: Using data from the United States National Cancer Institute Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, we examined the association between aspirin and ibuprofen use and HNC.

Results: Regular aspirin use was associated with a significant 22% reduction in HNC risk. No association was observed with regular ibuprofen use.

Conclusion: Aspirin may have potential as a chemopreventive agent for HNC, but further investigation is warranted.

The lived experience of patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: A literature review

It is estimated that 60% of patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer will receive radiotherapy at some stage in their disease trajectory. The aim of this literature review was to find and analyse papers pertaining to the lived experiences of patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy. The review identified a limited number of high-quality research papers focusing on this topic, with only 10 papers fitting the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the investigative studies were not generalisable owing to small sample sizes and many of them being conducted in only one centre. However, the findings do highlight and contribute to the understanding of the lived experiences of this patient group and provide some insight into the unique physical, social, and psychological difficulties they encounter as a result of their treatment. There appears to be a need for further high-level research into these patients, particularly focusing on the provision of support and information prior to, during, and following radiotherapy. Further attention needs to be paid to preparing patients for the slow recovery following radiotherapy. Interventional studies are also required to develop clinical guidelines and protocols that can assist health professionals in meeting the holistic needs of this patient group.

A Prospective Cohort Study of Body Size and Risk of Head and Neck Cancers in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Background: The association between body size and head and neck cancers (HNCA) is unclear, partly because of the biases in case–control studies. Methods: In the prospective NIH–AARP cohort study, 218,854 participants (132,288 men and 86,566 women), aged 50 to 71 years, were cancer free at baseline (1995 and 1996), and had valid anthropometric data. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the associations between body size and HNCA, adjusted for current and past smoking habits, alcohol intake, education, race, and fruit and vegetable consumption, and reported as HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Until December 31, 2006, 779 incident HNCAs occurred: 342 in the oral cavity, 120 in the oro- and hypopharynx, 265 in the larynx, 12 in the nasopharynx, and 40 at overlapping sites. There was an inverse association between HNCA and body mass index, which was almost exclusively among current smokers (HR = 0.76 per each 5 U increase; 95% CI, 0.63–0.93), and diminished as initial years of follow-up were excluded. We observed a direct association with waist-to-hip ratio (HR = 1.16 per 0.1 U increase; 95% CI, 1.03–1.31), particularly for cancers of the oral cavity (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17–1.67). Height was also directly associated with total HNCAs (P = 0.02), and oro- and hypopharyngeal cancers (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The risk of HNCAs was associated inversely with leanness among current smokers, and directly with abdominal obesity and height. Impact: Our study provides evidence that the association between leanness and risk of HNCAs may be due to effect modification by smoking. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(11); 2422–9. ©2014 AACR.

Pre-Radiotherapy Dental Assessment of Head and Neck Oncology Patients: An Audit.

Objectives: Approximately 300 people are diagnosed with Head and Neck cancer annually in Northern Ireland. The management may include treatment by surgery or by chemotherapy and radiotherapy,
or a combination of modalities. Patients whose oral cavity, teeth, salivary glands and jaws that
will be affected by treatment, particularly radiotherapy should have a pre-treatment assessment. This should be done as early as possible to maximise the time available for dental management. However, this can be challenging owing to the complexities of cancer diagnosis, treatment planning and multidisciplinary management. At the Belfast Dental Hospital, a number of patients were referred post- radiotherapy with complications after not having received a pre-treatment assessment. The referrals for pre- treatment dental assessment were also late in patients’ multidisciplinary journey, limiting the time period
for dental input. The purpose of this audit was to examine the time period between dental assessment and commencement of radiotherapy and whether this was an adequate time frame for dental management. This audit will also examine the dental diseases present and the treatments required pre-radiotherapy. Methods: Data for this audit was collected over 4 months in 2012
by analysing the dental charts and referrals of new patients who were referred to and attended the dental head and neck oncology clinic. A standardised referral pro-forma was introduced from September 2013 to improve the referral process.
A re-audit was conducted over 4 months in 2014. Data was collected similarly as previous. The time period between dental assessment and commencement of radiotherapy was examined. The presence of dental disease and subsequent treatments required were also noted.
Results: 63 new patients were examined in the dental head and neck oncology clinic over 4 months in 2012. 48 (76.2%) were examined pre-radiotherapy. The average length of time between dental assessment and radiotherapy commencement was 11 days. A new standardised referral pro-forma was introduced in 2013. In the re-audit, 65 new patients were seen over 4 months in 2014.
60 (92.3%) patients were examined pre-radiotherapy. The average length of time between dental assessment and radiotherapy commencement was 18 days.
Conclusion: Given the high prevalence of pre-existing dental disease amongst head and neck cancer patients, prompt dental assessment and treatment is vital. Efforts aimed at improving the care pathway are on-going through the implementation of a mandatory referral pro-forma and a dedicated assessment clinic.