Next Article in Journal
Effects of Black Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis) Extract on Proliferation and Differentiation of 3T3-L1 Preadipocytes into Mature Adipocytes
Next Article in Special Issue
Guidelines for Feeding Very Low Birth Weight Infants
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Riboflavin Intakes and Status of 20–64-Year-Old Adults in South Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microbiome Associations of Therapeutic Enteral Nutrition
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 7
Issue 1
10.3390/nu7010265
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Edit a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Nutritional Interventions in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy: A Narrative Review

by
Maurizio Bossola
Department of Surgery, Catholic University, University Hospital "A. Gemelli", Largo A. Gemelli, 8-00168 Rome, Italy
Nutrients 2015, 7(1), 265-276; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7010265
Received: 10 November 2014 / Accepted: 24 December 2014 / Published: 5 January 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Enteral Nutrition)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present review aimed to define the role of nutritional interventions in the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in HNC patients undergoing CRT as well as their impact on CRT-related toxicity and survival. Head and neck cancer patients are frequently malnourished at the time of diagnosis and prior to the beginning of treatment. In addition, chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) causes or exacerbates symptoms, such as alteration or loss of taste, mucositis, xerostomia, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, with consequent worsening of malnutrition. Nutritional counseling (NC) and oral nutritional supplements (ONS) should be used to increase dietary intake and to prevent therapy-associated weight loss and interruption of radiation therapy. If obstructing cancer and/or mucositis interfere with swallowing, enteral nutrition should be delivered by tube. However, it seems that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the optimal method of enteral feeding. Prophylactic feeding through nasogastric tube or percutaneous gastrostomy to prevent weight loss, reduce dehydration and hospitalizations, and avoid treatment breaks has become relatively common. Compared to reactive feeding (patients are supported with oral nutritional supplements and when it is impossible to maintain nutritional requirements enteral feeding via a NGT or PEG is started), prophylactic feeding does not offer advantages in terms of nutritional outcomes, interruptions of radiotherapy and survival. Overall, it seems that further adequate prospective, randomized studies are needed to define the better nutritional intervention in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy.

1. Introduction

Head and neck cancer (HNC) (cancer of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx) is the seventh most common malignancy in the world [1]. The majority of patients with HNC present with locally advanced disease [1], for which treatment is complex and aggressive, with a therapeutic goal of achieving a cure while minimizing toxicity. The standard of care is multidisciplinary, utilizing bimodality or trimodality therapy where appropriate. Recent advances have led to alterations in radiotherapeutic technologies, the introduction of sequential (induction) systemic chemotherapy, and the inclusion of targeted agents in combination chemotherapy regimens [2].
Head and neck cancer patients are frequently malnourished at the time of diagnosis and prior to the beginning of treatment [3,4,5,6,7]. In addition, chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) causes or exacerbates symptoms, such as alteration or loss of taste, mucositis, xerostomia, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, with consequent worsening of malnutrition [8,9,10,11,12]. It is well known that radiotherapy is invariably associated with mucositis, xerostomia, dysphagia, hematological toxicities and other acute side effects, whose incidence increases when chemotherapy is also administered, and that oral mucositis incidence leads to higher unplanned breaks and delays in radiotherapy administration [13,14,15,16]. In addition, in many patients such toxicities may be very severe and even life threatening and may lead to treatment interruptions that are invariably associated with poorer outcome [13,14,15,16]. To this regard, it has been shown that during radiotherapy or CRT 55% of the patients may lose an additional 10% or more of body weight [11,12]. Deterioration of the nutritional status results in an increase in CRT-related toxicity and this may increase the prolonged treatment time, which has been associated with poor clinical outcome [17,18].
In the current clinical practice, nutritional counseling with or without oral nutritional supplements patients receiving CRT for head and neck cancer is considered adequate [19] but its real role still remains to be clearly defined with regard to CRT-related toxicity.
If obstructing cancer and/or mucositis interfere with swallowing, enteral nutrition should be delivered by tube. However, it seems that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the optimal method of enteral feeding [19].
Prophylactic feeding through nasogastric tube or percutaneous gastrostomy has become relatively common. It remains to be defined if prophylactic feeding, compared to reactive feeding (patients are supported with oral nutritional supplements and when it is impossible to maintain nutritional requirements enteral feeding via a NGT or PEG is started), offers advantages in terms of nutritional outcomes, interruptions of radiotherapy and survival.
This review aimed to define the role of nutritional counseling, oral nutritional supplements, enteral nutrition through nasogastric tube or gastrostomy, and prophylactic gastrostomy in the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in HNC patients undergoing CRT as well as their impact on CRT-related toxicity and survival.

2. Methods

The following databases were searched for relevant studies up to October 2014: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search terms and mesh headings included “head and neck neoplasms” OR “head and neck cancer” AND “nutrition” OR “nutrition support” OR “dietary counselling” OR “nutritional counselling” or “ nutritional supplements” OR “nutrition therapy” OR “gastrostomy” OR enteral nutrition” OR “enteral feeding” OR “prophylactic gastrostomy” OR “reactive gastrostomy” OR “prophylactic nutrition” OR “prophylactic nutritional support”. Reference lists of relevant studies and previous systematic reviews were manually searched for additional articles.
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were English language papers published in a peer-reviewed journal and met the following inclusion criteria: primary research studies in adult patients (over 18 years of age), included patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy as the primary treatment, and investigated nutritional interventions in the form of oral supplements or dietary counseling or both or enteral nutrition through nasogastric tube or gastrostomy with primary outcomes, including dietary intake, weight, nutritional status, quality of life, functional status, treatment response, radiotherapy toxicity, or survival. None of the studies with such characteristics was excluded.

3. Nutritional Counseling and Oral Nutritional Supplements

International guidelines suggest that intensive nutritional counseling (NC) and oral nutritional supplements (ONS) should be used to increase dietary intake and to prevent therapy-associated weight loss and interruption of radiation therapy in patients undergoing radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy of head and neck areas [20,21,22].
This evidence is based essentially on a randomized study performed in 60 oncology outpatients receiving radiotherapy to the gastrointestinal (12%) or head and neck areas (78%). This study documented statistically smaller deteriorations in weight, nutritional status and global quality of life when intensive, individualized NC and ONS were used instead of standard nutritional care [4,5,21]. Indeed, Ravasco et al. [23], two years earlier, randomized 75 HNC patients referred for radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy to dietary counseling with regular foods (Group 1), usual diet plus supplements (Group 2) and food intake ad libitum (Group 3). At three months, Group 1 maintained intakes, whereas Groups 2 and 3 returned to or below baseline levels. In addition, at three months, the reduction of incidence/severity of symptoms (anorexia, nausea/vomiting, xerostomia, and dysgeusia) improved in 90% of the patients in Group 1 vs. 67% in Group 2 and 51% in Group 3 (p < 0.0001). QOL function scores improved (p < 0.003) proportionally with improved nutritional intake and status in Group 1/Group 2 (p < 0.05) and worsened in Group 3 (p < 0.05).
Thereafter, few studies have been conducted on this topic (Table 1). The recent prospective study of van den Berg et al. [24] has clearly confirmed that early and intensive individualized dietary counseling by a dietitian produces clinically relevant effects in terms of decreasing weight loss and malnutrition compared with standard nutritional counseling. All these data are in accordance with previous studies that have evaluated the effects of nutritional counseling and/or ONS in head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy only [25,26].
Table
Table 1. Nutritional counseling (NC) and oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT).
Table 1. Nutritional counseling (NC) and oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT).
AuthorNumber of PatientsCancer TherapyNutritional OutcomeInterruption of RT
Arnold and Richter, 1989 [25]Group 1: no nutritional supplements; Group 2: nutritional supplementsRTNo differences between the groupsNo differences between the groups
Nayel et al., 1992 [26]Group 1: 12 pts; radiotherapy alone; Group 2: 11 pts; radiotherapy and ONSRTGroup 1: in all increase in body weight and in triceps skin-fold thickness, Group 2: 58% had WL (p = 0.001)Group 1: 41.6%; Group 2: 0%; (p < 0.001)
Goncalves Diaz et al., 2005 [27]Group 1: 32 pts; adapted oral diet; Group 2: 16 pts; enteral nutrition via a NG tube (6x/day); Group 3: 16 pts; oral diet associated to ONS between meals (3×/day).RTAll of the groups presented an increase in the ingestion of calories and proteins (p < 0.001).Not assessed
Ravasco et al., 2005 [23]Group 1: 25 pts; NC with regular foods; Group 2: 25 pts; usual diet with ONS; Group 3: 25 pts; intake ad lib.CRTReduction of anorexia, nausea/vomiting, xerostomia, and dysgeusia: Group 1: 90% of pts; Group 2: 67% of pts; Group 3: 51% of ptsNo differences among the groups
Isenring et al., 2007 [21]Group 1: 31 pts; standard practice; Group 2: 29 pts; individualized NCCRTSmaller deteriorations in weight, nutritional status and global quality of life in group 2Not assessed
Paccagnella et al., 2010 [28]Group 1: 33 pts; early nutritional intervention before they were submitted to CRT; Group 2: 33 pts; CRT aloneCRTGroup 1: WL (%) 4.4 ± 4.2; Group 2: WL (%) 8.1 ± 4.8; (p < 0.01)Group 1: 30.3%; Group 2: 63.6%; (p < 0.01)
Van den Berg, 2010 [24]Group 1: 20 pts; individual dietary counseling; Group 2: 18 pts; standard dietary counselingCRTGroup 1: WL (%) 2.3 ± 1.2; Group 2: WL (%) 4.8 ± 2.2Not assessed
Valentini et al., 2012 [29]21 pts with NC and ONSCRT-28% for ≥6 days, 28% for 3–5 days and 44% for 0–2 days
In the current clinical practice, NC with or without ONS in patients receiving CRT for head and neck cancer are considered useful but its real role still remains to be clearly defined with regard to CRT-related toxicity. It is possible, in fact, that the improvement of nutritional status obtained through NC and/or ONS may translate in reduced CRT-related toxicity. Unfortunately, data on this issue are few. Among the studies, which included patients receiving radiotherapy, CRT-related toxicity was not assessed in one study and assessed in two (with no differences in one study and with a beneficial effect of ONS on CRT-related toxicity in the other one). Among the studies which included patients receiving chemo-radiotherapy, three did not assess CRT-related toxicity, one found no differences in CRT-related toxicity between patients receiving or not receiving counseling/ONS, and two found such differences. Paccagnella et al. [28] showed that the frequency of grade 3–4 mucositis was 45.5% and 39.4% in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy and receiving, respectively, early nutritional intervention (individualized nutritional counseling and oral supplements or enteral nutrition) or standard practice (general nutrition counseling). However, the percentage of patients who had radiotherapy breaks >5 days for toxicity was significantly lower in the early intervention group than in the standard practice group as well as the number of days of radiotherapy delayed for toxicity and the frequency of hospitalization. The study of Valentini et al. [29] has shown that, in patients with head and neck cancer receiving CRT, nutritional counseling combined with ONS was associated with relatively low CRT-related toxicity and with a percentage of patients interrupting anti-neoplastic treatment for 6 or more days lower than 30%.
Taken together, all these data support the concept, suggested by some authors [22,27], that head and neck cancer patients undergoing CRT need early and regular nutritional assessment and interventions during treatment and that dieticians need to adapt to the needs of each patient and provide individualized care. This is particularly true in patients with diabetes, which are not uncommon in such population.

4. Enteral Nutrition via Nasogastric Tube or Gastrostomy

International guidelines also suggest that if an obstructing head and neck cancer interferes with swallowing, enteral nutrition (EN) should be delivered by tube [20]. Tube feeding is also suggested if severe local mucositis is expected, which might interfere with swallowing, e.g., in radio-chemotherapy regimens, including radiation of throat [20].
Tube feeding can either be delivered via the nasogastric tube (NG) or percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG). Because of radiation induced oral and esophageal mucositis, PEG may be preferred and it has been demonstrated clearly that early and appropriate supplementary enteral nutrition via a PEG system is more effective than oral nutrition alone in those cases in which the patient undergoes several weeks of chemotherapy/radiotherapy [30]. However, PEG has a rate of complications that is estimated to be in the range 8%–30%, including local wound infection, occlusion of the tube, leakage from the tube, cellulitis, eczema or hypergranulation tissue [30].
Unfortunately, only three studies have compared NG and PEG in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, and radiation treatment interruption (Table 2). Of these, two studies were retrospective and one prospective. In the study of Magnè et al. [31], 50 HNC patients were managed by PEG and 40 by NG. The feeding methods were found to be equally effective at maintaining body weight and body mass index at time 1 (three weeks) and at time 2 (six weeks). In the study of Mekhail et al. [32], NG tubes were placed in 29 patients and PEG in 62. PEG patients had more dysphagia at three months (59% vs. 30%, respectively; p = 0.015) and at six months (30% vs. 8%, respectively; p = 0.029) than NG patients. The median tube duration was 28 weeks for PEG patients compared with eight weeks for NG patients, (p < 0.001). Twenty-three percent of PEG patients needed pharyngo-esophageal dilatation compared with 4% of NG patients (p = 0.022). In the prospective study of Corry et al. [33], there were 32 PEG and 73 NGT patients. PEG patients sustained significantly less weight loss at six weeks post-treatment (median 0.8 kg gain vs. 3.7 kg loss, p < 0.001), but had a high insertion site infection rate (41%), longer median duration of use (146 vs. 57 days, p < 0.001), and more grade 3 dysphagia in disease-free survivors at six months (25% vs. 8%, p = 0.07). 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. At six months post-treatment, there was no significant difference between the NGT and PEG groups in complete response at the primary site, weight, dysphagia grade 3 or performance status. Thirty-five percent of evaluable patients in the NGT group (18/52) had ≥10% loss of their body weight compared to 13% (3/23) in the PEG group (p = 0.09).
Table
Table 2. Enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT): comparison of nasogastric tube (NGT) and percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG). WL, weight loss; QOL, quality of life.
Table 2. Enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT): comparison of nasogastric tube (NGT) and percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG). WL, weight loss; QOL, quality of life.
AuthorType of StudyNumber of PatientsCancer TherapyNutritional OutcomeInterruption of RTOther Outcomes
Magnè et al., 2001 [31]RetrospectivePEG: 50 pts; NGT: 40 ptsCRTWeight and BMI comparable at week 3 and 6Not assessedBetter QOL with PEG
Mekhail et al., 2001[32]RetrospectivePEG: 62 pts; NGT: 29 ptsCRTNot assessedNot assessedDysphagia more persistent with PEG at 3 and 6 months; By 12 months, difference disappeared
Corry et al., 2009 [33]ProspectivePEG: 32 pts; NGT: 73 ptsCRTWL (kg) at 6 weeks: PEG = +0.8 vs. NGT = −3.7; p < 0.001; WL (kg) at 6 months: PEG = +1 vs. NGT = −4.3; p = 0.04Not assessedPEG patients: high insertion site infection rate (41%), longer duration of use (146 vs. 57 days, p < 0.001), more grade 3 dysphagia at 6 months; higher costs
Interestingly, long-term swallow function after chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer seems to be similar in patients receiving prophylactic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube [34].
Little is known about the number of hospitalizations as well as the costs of the two different feeding approaches. In the study of Corry et al. [33], the number of days of hospitalization and costs in the PEG group were significantly higher than in the NGT group. However, if it is considered that PEG is now placed without hospitalization, it is possible that the cost consistently decrease significantly.
It seems that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the optimal method of enteral feeding for patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy. Further trials comparing the two methods of enteral feeding and including an appropriate number of patients are required.

5. Prophylactic Nutritional Support

In the last decade, the prophylactic feeding (P-FT) through NGT or PEG, before beginning CRT, to prevent weight loss, reduce dehydration and hospitalizations, and avoid treatment breaks has become relatively common. Alternatively, patients are supported with oral nutritional supplements and, when it is impossible to maintain nutritional requirements, enteral feeding via a NGT or PEG is started (reactive feeding; R-FT).
Numerous studies have compared these two approaches as detailed in Table 3. Six studies were retrospective and two prospective, randomized [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. In the majority of these studies, the nutritional outcome was similar in patients receiving prophylactic and reactive feeding. The number of interruptions of anti-cancer treatment was not assessed in two studies and did not differ significantly in five studies. In the study of Lewis et al., patients with P-FT completed a higher proportion of chemotherapy cycles compared to no-FT (p = 0.002) and RFT (p < 0.001). When assessed, overall and disease-free survival were similar in the different groups of nutritional treatment. One study has shown that quality of life at six months was significantly higher in the group receiving systematic prophylactic gastrostomy [43].
It seems that prophylactic feeding, compared to reactive feeding (patients are supported with oral nutritional supplements and when it is impossible to maintain nutritional requirements enteral feeding via a NGT or PEG is started), does not offer significant advantages in terms of nutritional outcomes, interruptions of radiotherapy and survival. However, considering the limited number of prospective, randomized studies, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn and it is desirable that further investigations will be conducted on this issue in the next future.
Interestingly, Baschnagel et al. [44] have recently shown that there was no difference in the PEG tube dependence rates between PEG placed prophylactically vs. reactively. However, patients who received a PEG tube reactively had a significantly higher stricture rate and aspiration rate compared to the prophylactic group. In addition, there were significantly fewer hospitalizations in the prophylactic group compared to the reactive group. Overall, when accounting for both PEG placement and hospitalizations, the prophylactic approach was found to be more cost effective.
In 2013, Hughes et al. [45] retrospectively examined the data of HNC patients, who underwent CRT for the years before (2005) and after (2007) implementation of internal guidelines, in terms of number of hospitalization and costs. Only five patients (6.5% of all patients treated) in the 2005 cohort received prophylactic gastrostomy tubes compared with 39 patients (44.3%) in the 2007 cohort. Patients in 2007 had significantly fewer hospital admissions, unexpected admissions, and a shorter mean duration of hospital stay in comparison with those in 2005.
Noteworthy, a recent retrospective study has identified independent risk factors (BMI >25, a tumor classification ≥3, a cumulative cisplatin dose of 200 mg/m2) associated with symptomatic requirement for the reactive placement of a PEG tube [46].
Table
Table 3. Prophylactic feeding in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT). P-PEG, prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy; R-PEG, reactive percutaneous gastrostomy. No-FT, no feeding tube; NGT, nasogastric tube; NC, nutritional counselling; ONS, oral nutritional supplements.
Table 3. Prophylactic feeding in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT). P-PEG, prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy; R-PEG, reactive percutaneous gastrostomy. No-FT, no feeding tube; NGT, nasogastric tube; NC, nutritional counselling; ONS, oral nutritional supplements.
AuthorType of StudyCancer TherapyNumber of PatientsNutritional TreatmentNutritional OutcomeInterruption of RTSurvival
Salas et al., 2009 [43]Randomized trialCRT39P-PEG: 21 pts; R-PEG: 18 ptsSimilar decrease of BMI at 6 months in the two groupsNot assessedSurvival not assessed. Better QOL at 6 months in the P-PEG group
Nugent et al., 2010 [41]RetrospectiveCRT76ONS: 26 pts; NGT: 18 pts; P-PEG: 21 pts; R-PEG: 11 ptsWL% at end of treatment:ONS: 6.1NG-tube: 8.5 P-PEG: 4.6; T-PEG:8.7; (p = NS)No differences between the groupsNot assessed
Chen et al., 2010 [42]RetrospectiveCRT120Control: 20 pts; P-PEG: 70 ptsWL% at end of treatment: Control: 14; P-PEG: 8 (p < 0.001); WL% at 3 months: Control: 8P-PEG: 5; (p = 0.34)No differences between the groups (p = 0.54)No significant differences in the 3-year overall and disease-free survival
Silander et al., 2012 [40]Randomized trialCRT134NC (+NGT): 70 pts; P-PEG: 64 pts Same proportion of patients who had a 10 % weight loss at 3, 6 and 12 monthsNo differences between the groups (p = 0.08).No differences in 2-year survival between the groups (p = 0.40)
Williams et al., 2012 [39]RetrospectiveCRT104NGT: 21 pts; P-PEG: 71 pts; R-PEG: 12 ptsNo differences in weight loss at the end of treatment and at 6 months post-radiotherapy (p = 0.23).No differences between the groups (p = 0.47).No significant differences in disease free and overall survival between the groups (p = 0.90 and p = 0.13, respectively)
Olson et al., 2013 [38]RetrospectiveCRT445Center A, prefers R-PEG; Center B, prefers P-PEG:Same % of patients with 10% weight loss at 1 year in the two centersNot assessedNo significant differences in the overall survival
Lewis et al., 2013 [37]RetrospectiveCRT109Control: 50 pts; P-PEG:25 pts; R-PEG: 34 ptsWeight loss (%): Control: 15.2; P-PEG: 2.4; R-PEG: 10.4Patients with P- PEG completed a higher proportion of chemotherapy cycles compared to control (p = 0.002) and R- PEG (p <0.001).Not assessed
Kramer et al., 2014 [36]RetrospectiveCRT74P-PEG: 56 pts; R-PEG: 300 ptsNo difference in weight loss (%) at 2, 6, 12 months.Not assessed.No difference in survival or disease control

6. Conclusions

Head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy are at risk of malnutrition before and during treatment. Nutritional counseling and oral nutritional supplements should be used to increase dietary intake and to prevent therapy-associated weight loss and interruption of radiation therapy. If obstructing cancer and/or mucositis interfere with swallowing, enteral nutrition should be delivered by tube. However, it seems that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the optimal method of enteral feeding. Prophylactic feeding through nasogastric tube or percutaneous gastrostomy to prevent weight loss, reduce dehydration and hospitalizations, and avoid treatment breaks has become relatively common. However, compared to reactive feeding (patients are supported with oral nutritional supplements and when it is impossible to maintain nutritional requirements enteral feeding via a NGT or PEG is started), prophylactic feeding does not offer advantages in terms of nutritional outcomes, interruptions of radiotherapy and survival.
Overall, it seems that further adequate prospective, randomized studies are needed to define the better nutritional intervention in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy and to eventually change the current practice, having in mind that the nutritional treatment of these patients is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. World Cancer Report 2014 (ePUB); World Health Organization Press: Lyon, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  2. Denaro, N.; Russi, E.G.; Adamo, V.; Merlano, M.C. State-of-the-art and emerging treatment options in the management of head and neck cancer, news from 2013. Oncology 2014, 86, 212–229. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. De Luis, D.A.; Izaola, O.; Aller, R. Nutritional status in head and neck cancer patients. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2007, 11, 239–243. [Google Scholar]
  4. Isenring, E.A.; Capra, S.; Bauer, J.D. Nutrition intervention is beneficial in oncology outpatients receiving radiotherapy to the gastrointestinal or head and neck area. Br. J. Cancer 2004, 91, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Isenring, E.; Capra, S.; Bauer, J. Patient satisfaction is rated higher by radiation oncology outpatients receiving nutrition intervention compared with usual care. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2004, 17, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Van Wayenburg, C.A.; Rasmussen-Conrad, E.L.; van den Berg, M.G.; Merkx, M.A.; van Staveren, W.A.; van Weel, C.; van Binsbergen, J.J. Weight loss in head and neck cancer patients little noticed in general practice. J. Prim. Health Care 2010, 2, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  7. Van Leeuwen, P.A.; Kuik, D.J.; Klop, W.M.; Sauerwein, H.P.; Snow, G.B.; Quak, J.J. The impact of nutritional status on the prognoses of patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer 1999, 86, 519–527. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonner, J.A.; Harari, P.M.; Giralt, J.; Azarnia, N.; Shin, D.M.; Cohen, R.B.; Jones, C.U.; Sur, R.; Raben, D.; Jassem, J.; et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 354, 567–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Brizel, D.M.; Albers, M.E.; Fisher, S.R.; Scher, R.L.; Richtsmeier, W.J.; Hars, V.; George, S.L.; Huang, A.T.; Prosnitz, L.R. Hyperfractionated irradiation with or without concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998, 18, 1798–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Colasanto, J.M.; Prasad, P.; Nash, M.A.; Decker, R.H.; Wilson, L.D. Nutritional support of patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Oncology 2005, 19, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Ng, K.; Leung, S.F.; Johnson, P.J.; Woo, J. Nutritional consequences of radiotherapy in nasopharynx cancer patients. Nutr. Cancer 2004, 49, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Silver, H.J.; Dietrich, M.S.; Murphy, B.A. Changes in body mass, energy balance, physical function, and inflammatory state in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation after low-dose induction chemotherapy. Head Neck 2007, 29, 893–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bernier, J.; Domenge, C.; Ozsahin, M.; Matuszewska, K.; Lefèbvre, J.L.; Greiner, R.H.; Giralt, J.; Maingon, P.; Rolland, F.; Bolla, M.; et al. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 1945–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bieri, S.; Bentzen, S.M.; Huguenin, P.; Allal, A.S.; Cozzi, L.; Landmann, C.; Monney, M.; Bernier, J. Early morbidity after radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in advanced head and neck cancer. Experience from four nonrandomized studies. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2003, 179, 390–395. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Cooper, J.S.; Pajak, T.F.; Forastiere, A.A.; Jacobs, J.; Campbell, B.H.; Saxman, S.B.; Kish, J.A.; Kim, H.E.; Cmelak, A.J.; Rotman, M.; et al. Long-term follow-up of the RTOG 9501/intergroup phase III trial, postoperative concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy in high-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, 1198–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lin, A.; Jabbari, S.; Worden, F.P.; Bradford, C.R.; Chepeha, D.B.; Teknos, T.N.; Liao, J.J.; Nyquist, G.G.; Tsien, C.; Schipper, M.J.; et al. Metabolic abnormalities associated with weight loss during chemoirradiation of head-and-neck cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005, 63, 1413–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rosenthal, D.I. Consequences of mucositis-induced treatment breaks and dose reductions on head and neck cancer treatment outcomes. J. Support. Oncol. 2007, 9 (Suppl. 4), 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  18. Vera-Llonch, M.; Oster, G.; Hagiwara, M.; Sonis, S. Oral mucositis in patients undergoing radiation treatment for head and neck carcinoma. Cancer 2006, 106, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Garg, S.; Yoo, J.; Winquist, E. Nutritional support for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: A systematic review. Support. Care Cancer 2010, 8, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Arends, J.; Bodoky, G.; Bozzetti, F.; Fearon, K.; van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, M.A.; Muscaritoli, M.; Selga, G.; von Meyenfeldt, M.; DGEM (German Society for Nutritional Medicine); Zürcher, G.; et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition, Non-surgical oncology. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 25, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Isenring, E.A.; Bauer, J.D.; Capra, S. Nutrition support using the American Dietetic Association medical nutrition therapy protocol for radiation oncology patients improves dietary intake compared with standard practice. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2007, 107, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  22. Bauer, D.J.; Ash, S.; Davidson, L.W.; Hill, M.J.; Brown, T.; Isenring, A.E.; Reeves, M. Evidence based practice guidelines for the nutritional management of patients receiving radiation therapy of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Nutr. Diet. 2008, 65, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ravasco, P.; Monteiro-Grillo, I.; Marques Vidal, P.; Camilo, M.E. Impact of nutrition on outcome, a prospective randomized controlled trial in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Head Neck 2005, 27, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Van den Berg, M.G.; Rasmussen-Conrad, E.L.; Wei, K.H.; Lintz-Luidens, H.; Kaanders, J.H.; Merkx, M.A. Comparison of the effect of individual dietary counselling and of standard nutritional care on weight loss in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Br. J. Nutr. 2010, 104, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Arnold, C.; Richter, M.P. The effect of oral nutritional supplements on head and neck cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1989, 16, 1595–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Nayel, H.; el-Ghoneimy, E.; el-Haddad, S. Impact of nutritional supplementation on treatment delay and morbidity inpatients with head and neck tumors treated with irradiation. Nutrition 1992, 8, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Gonçalves Dias, M.C.; de Fátima Nunes Marucci, M.; Nadalin, W.; Waitzberg, D.L. Nutritional intervention improves the caloric and proteic ingestion of head and neck cancer patients under radiotherapy. Nutr. Hosp. 2005, 20, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Paccagnella, A.; Morello, M.; da Mosto, M.C.; Baruffi, C.; Marcon, M.L.; Gava, A.; Baggio, V.; Lamon, S.; Babare, R.; Rosti, G.; et al. Early nutritional intervention improves treatment tolerance and outcomes in head and neck cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Support. Care Cancer 2010, 18, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Valentini, V.; Marazzi, F.; Bossola, M.; Miccichè, F.; Nardone, L.; Balducci, M.; Dinapoli, N.; Bonomo, P.; Autorino, R.; Silipigni, S.; et al. Nutritional counselling and oral nutritional supplements in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2012, 25, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Löser, C.; Aschl, G.; Hébuterne, X.; Mathus-Vliegen, E.M.; Muscaritoli, M.; Niv, Y.; Rollins, H.; Singer, P.; Skelly, R.H. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition—Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin. Nutr. 2005, 24, 848–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Magné, N.; Marcy, P.Y.; Foa, C.; Falewee, M.N.; Schneider, M.; Demard, F.; Bensadoun, R.J. Comparison between nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2001, 258, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mekhail, T.M.; Adelstein, D.J.; Rybicki, L.A.; Larto, M.A.; Saxton, J.P.; Lavertu, P. Enteral nutrition during the treatment of head and neck carcinoma: Is a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube preferable to a nasogastric tube? Cancer 2001, 91, 1785–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Corry, J.; Poon, W.; McPhee, N.; Milner, A.D.; Cruickshank, D.; Porceddu, S.V.; Rischin, D.; Peters, L.J. Prospective study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes vs. nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing (chemo)radiation. Head Neck 2009, 31, 867–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Prestwich, R.J.; Teo, M.T.; Gilbert, A.; Williams, G.; Dyker, K.E.; Sen, M. Long-term swallow function after chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer: The influence of a prophylactic gastrostomy or reactive nasogastric tube. Clin. Oncol. (R. CollRadiol.) 2014, 26, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, J.H.; Machtay, M.; Unger, L.D.; Weinstein, G.S.; Weber, R.S.; Chalian, A.A.; Rosenthal, D.I. (1998) Prophylactic gastrostomy tubes in patients undergoing intensive radiation irradiation for cancer of the head and neck. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1998, 124, 871–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kramer, S.; Newcomb, M.; Hessler, J.; Siddiqui, F. Prophylactic vs. reactive PEG tube placement in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014, 150, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lewis, S.L.; Brody, R.; Touger-Decker, R.; Parrott, J.S.; Epstein, J. Feeding tube use in head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Olson, R.; Karam, I.; Wilson, G.; Bowman, A.; Lee, C.; Wong, F. Population-based comparison of two feeding tube approaches for head and neck cancer patients receiving concurrent systemic-radiation therapy: Is a prophylactic feeding tube approach harmful or helpful? Support. Care Cancer. 2013, 21, 3433–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Williams, G.F.; Teo, M.T.; Sen, M.; Dyker, K.E.; Coyle, C.; Prestwich, R.J. Enteral feeding outcomes after chemoradiotherapy for oropharynx cancer: A role for a prophylactic gastrostomy? Oral Oncol. 2012, 48, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Silander, E.; Nyman, J.; Bove, M.; Johansson, L.; Larsson, S.; Hammerlid, E. Impact of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy on malnutrition and quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: A randomized study. Head Neck 2012, 34, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Nugent, B.; Parker, M.J.; McIntyre, I.A. Nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2010, 23, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chen, A.M.; Li, B.Q.; Lau, D.H.; Farwell, D.G.; Luu, Q.; Stuart, K.; Newman, K.; Purdy, J.A.; Vijayakumar, S. Evaluating the role of prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement prior to definitive chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010, 78, 1026–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Salas, S.; Baumstarck-Barrau, K.; Alfonsi, M.; Digue, L.; Bagarry, D.; Feham, N.; Bensadoun, R.J.; Pignon, T.; Loundon, A.; Deville, J.L.; et al. Impact of the prophylactic gastrostomy for unresectable squamous cell head and neck carcinomas treated with radio-chemotherapy on quality of life: Prospective randomized trial. Radiother. Oncol. 2009, 93, 503–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Baschnagel, A.M.; Yadav, S.; Marina, O.; Parzuchowski, A.; Lanni, T.B., Jr.; Warner, J.N.; Parzuchowski, J.S.; Ignatius, R.T.; Akervall, J.; Chen, P.Y.; et al. Toxicities and costs of placing prophylactic and reactive percutaneous gastrostomy tubes in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with chemoradiotherapy. Head Neck 2014, 36, 1155–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hughes, B.G.; Jain, V.K.; Brown, T.; Spurgin, A.L.; Hartnett, G.; Keller, J.; Tripcony, L.; Appleyard, M.; Hodge, R. Decreased hospital stay and significant cost savings after routine use of prophylactic gastrostomy for high-risk patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy at a tertiary cancer institution. Head Neck 2013, 35, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Strom, T.; Trotti, A.M.; Kish, J.; Rao, N.G.; McCaffrey, J.; Padhya, T.A.; Lin, H.Y.; Fulp, W.; Caudell, J.J. Risk factors for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement during chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2013, 139, 1242–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bossola, M. Nutritional Interventions in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy: A Narrative Review. Nutrients 2015, 7, 265-276. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7010265

AMA Style

Bossola M. Nutritional Interventions in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy: A Narrative Review. Nutrients. 2015; 7(1):265-276. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7010265

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bossola, Maurizio. 2015. "Nutritional Interventions in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy: A Narrative Review" Nutrients 7, no. 1: 265-276. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7010265

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop