Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation.
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008 Oct; 52(5):503-10.JM

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. june.corry@petermac.orgNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19032398

Citation

Corry, J, et al. "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, vol. 52, no. 5, 2008, pp. 503-10.
Corry J, Poon W, McPhee N, et al. Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008;52(5):503-10.
Corry, J., Poon, W., McPhee, N., Milner, A. D., Cruickshank, D., Porceddu, S. V., Rischin, D., & 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), 503-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x
Corry J, et al. Randomized Study of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Versus Nasogastric Tubes for Enteral Feeding in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated With (chemo)radiation. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008;52(5):503-10. PubMed PMID: 19032398.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation. AU - Corry,J, AU - Poon,W, AU - McPhee,N, AU - Milner,A D, AU - Cruickshank,D, AU - Porceddu,S V, AU - Rischin,D, AU - Peters,L J, PY - 2008/11/27/pubmed PY - 2009/2/28/medline PY - 2008/11/27/entrez SP - 503 EP - 10 JF - Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology JO - J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol VL - 52 IS - 5 N2 - 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. SN - 1754-9485 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19032398/Randomized_study_of_percutaneous_endoscopic_gastrostomy_versus_nasogastric_tubes_for_enteral_feeding_in_head_and_neck_cancer_patients_treated_with__chemo_radiation_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -