Prospective study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing (chemo)radiation
Article first published online: 18 MAR 2009
Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Head & Neck
Volume 31, Issue 7, pages 867–876, July 2009
How to Cite
Corry, J., Poon, W., McPhee, N., Milner, A. D., Cruickshank, D., Porceddu, S. V., Rischin, D. and Peters, L. J. (2009), Prospective study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing (chemo)radiation. Head Neck, 31: 867–876. doi: 10.1002/hed.21044
- Issue published online: 17 JUN 2009
- Article first published online: 18 MAR 2009
- Manuscript Accepted: 2 OCT 2008
- percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube;
- nasogastric tube;
- head and neck cancer;
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have largely replaced nasogastric tubes (NGTs) for nutritional support of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative (chemo) radiotherapy without any good scientific basis.
A prospective study was conducted to compare PEG tubes and NGTs in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, patient satisfaction, and cost.
There were 32 PEG and 73 NGT patients. PEG patients sustained significantly less weight loss at 6 weeks post-treatment (median 0.8 kg gain vs 3.7 kg loss, p < .001), but had a high insertion site infection rate (41%), longer median duration of use (146 vs 57 days, p < .001), and more grade 3 dysphagia in disease-free survivors at 6 months (25% vs 8%, p = .07). Patient self-assessed general physical condition and overall quality of life scores were similar in both groups. Overall costs were significantly higher for PEG patients.
PEG tube use should be selective, not routine, in this patient population. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2009