Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2014 May;55(3):559-67.
doi: 10.1093/jrr/rrt144. Epub 2014 Jan 22.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Jinfeng Wang  1 , Minjie Liu, Chao Liu, Yun Ye, Guanhong Huang
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Jinfeng Wang et al. J Radiat Res. 2014 May.

Abstract

There are two main enteral feeding strategies-namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy-used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optimal method for this patient group. To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous gastrostomy and NGT feeding in patients with HNC, relevant literature was identified through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane, Wiley and manual searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-experimental studies comparing percutaneous gastrostomy-including percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) -with NG for HNC patients. Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to the methodological quality of the individual studies. Data were then compared with respect to nutritional status, duration of feeding, complications, radiotherapy delays, disease-free survival and overall survival. Methodological quality of RCTs and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales. It became apparent from our studies that both feeding strategies have advantages and disadvantages.

Keywords: enteral nutrition; gastrostomy; head and neck neoplasms; nasogastric tubes; percutaneous gastrostomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of study selection.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Random effects analysis of complications.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Random effects analysis of survival.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Locher JL, Bonner JA, Carroll WR, et al. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in treatment of head and neck cancer: a comprehensive review and call for evidence-based medicine. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011;35:365–74. - PubMed
    1. Vissink A, Jansma J, Spijkervet F, et al. Oral sequelae of head and neck radiotherapy. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2003;14:199–212. - PubMed
    1. Beer KT, Krause KB, Zuercher T, et al. Early percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion maintains nutritional state in patients with aerodigestive tract cancer. Nutr Cancer. 2005;52:29–34. - PubMed
    1. Isenring EA, Capra S, Bauer JD. Nutrition intervention is beneficial in oncology outpatients receiving radiotherapy to the gastrointestinal or head and neck area. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:447–52. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mercuri A, Joon DL, Wada M, et al. The effect of an intensive nutritional program on daily set‐up variations and radiotherapy planning margins of head and neck cancer patients. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009;53:500–5. - PubMed