2011
DOI: 10.3747/co.v18i4.749
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prophylactic Feeding Tubes for Patients with Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer Undergoing Combined Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy—Systematic Review and Recommendations for Clinical Practice

Abstract: The available evidence was insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of prophylactic feeding tubes in the target patient population or to support an evidence-based practice guideline. After review of the evidence, of guidelines from other groups, and of current clinical practice in Canada, the multidisciplinary panel made consensus-based recommendations regarding comprehensive interdisciplinary clinical care before, during, and after cancer treatment. The recommendations are based on … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
18
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous Systematic Reviews on the Impact of Prophylactic PEG Use Given the clinical controversy that exists, recent systematic reviews have assessed the benefits and risks associated with prophylactic PEG tube placement in patients with HNC [73][74][75][76]. Many of these reviews have only considered outcomes relating to nutrition, weight loss, and/or quality of life and have neglected swallowing-related outcomes [74,76,77].…”
Section: Tube Feedingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous Systematic Reviews on the Impact of Prophylactic PEG Use Given the clinical controversy that exists, recent systematic reviews have assessed the benefits and risks associated with prophylactic PEG tube placement in patients with HNC [73][74][75][76]. Many of these reviews have only considered outcomes relating to nutrition, weight loss, and/or quality of life and have neglected swallowing-related outcomes [74,76,77].…”
Section: Tube Feedingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many of these reviews have only considered outcomes relating to nutrition, weight loss, and/or quality of life and have neglected swallowing-related outcomes [74,76,77]. Others have neglected to assess the quality of the studies included in their reviews [74,75].…”
Section: Tube Feedingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent reviews have failed to provide evidence either for or against a role for nutrition support. In 2011, two reviews were published and due to a lack of high-quality studies, only recommendations for future studies could be made [23,24]. Multicenter RCTs and well designed observation studies at multiple sites that examine nutrition support were recommended [23]; however, the fundamental nature of the intervention makes randomization to a placebo difficult.…”
Section: The Impact Of Nutrition Supportmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Cependant, elle est nettement meilleure dans le bras d'étude six mois après le début du traitement. Une méta-analyse récente d'Orphanidou et al publiée en 2011 [48] a recherché le bénéfice et le risque d'une alimentation entérale prophylactique pour les patients avec un carcinome épidérmoïde de la sphère ORL chez qui une radiochimiothérapie concomitante à visée curative est prévue. Les auteurs recommandent que l'alimentation entérale doit être envisagée chez les patients avec un intestin fonctionnel qui sont incapables d'assurer les besoins nutritionnels journaliers par voie orale et de l'installer d'une façon individuelle à visée prophylactique chez les patients avec un ou plusieurs des signes suivants : perte de poids importante (plus de 5 % à 1 mois et plus de 10 % en 6 mois), l'indice de masse corporelle inférieur à 18,5, la dysphagie, l'anorexie, la déshydratation, la douleur ou d'autres symptômes qui peuvent altérer l'alimentation par voie orale.…”
Section: La Supplémentation Par Voie Oraleunclassified