International journal of clinical oncology · 2021
Predictors of the need for prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kano Satoshi, Tsushima Nayuta, Suzuki Takayoshi, Hamada Seijiro, Yokokawa Taizo, Idogawa Hiroshi, Yasuda Koichi, Minatogawa Hideki, Dekura Yasuhiro, Aoyama Hidefumi, Homma Akihiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We investigated whether prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is used effectively for patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and the predictors of the need for PEG.
METHODS: 326 patients with laryngeal, oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancers were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: The PEG tube use group had more favorable results than the total parenteral nutrition and nasogastric tube groups in terms of rate of serum albumin loss, incidence of severe fever and aspiration pneumonia, CCRT completion rate and hospitalization period. However, it was inferior to oral intake. Analysis of the relative risk of requiring enteral or parenteral nutrition revealed that performance status (PS) 2, primary site (supraglottis, oropharynx, or hypopharynx), N3 disease, and cisplatin were predictors of the need for nutritional support.
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic PEG is effective for patients treated with definitive CCRT and is especially required for patients with PS2 or oropharyngeal cancer.
METHODS: 326 patients with laryngeal, oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancers were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: The PEG tube use group had more favorable results than the total parenteral nutrition and nasogastric tube groups in terms of rate of serum albumin loss, incidence of severe fever and aspiration pneumonia, CCRT completion rate and hospitalization period. However, it was inferior to oral intake. Analysis of the relative risk of requiring enteral or parenteral nutrition revealed that performance status (PS) 2, primary site (supraglottis, oropharynx, or hypopharynx), N3 disease, and cisplatin were predictors of the need for nutritional support.
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic PEG is effective for patients treated with definitive CCRT and is especially required for patients with PS2 or oropharyngeal cancer.