Utility of Prophylactic Percutaneous Gastrostomy in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Multicenter Analysis

Introduction: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) have an elevated incidence of cachexia and malnutrition due to the tumor's location interfering with oral feeding. Concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) can have an emetic effect and cause dysphagia and oral mucositis. Adequate nutrition improves immunity, raises the response to therapy, reduces adverse effects, and improves survival. Numerous studies have suggested the utility of nutritional support from percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in HNC patients. Although PEG is usually considered a safe procedure, it has a mortality rate of 0-2.2% and a risk of other procedure-related complications of 17-40%. Our work intends to evaluate the utility of PEG in patients with locally advanced HNC who underwent CCRT. Methods: We performed a cohort study at three institutions. We included patients with HNC who underwent definitive CCRT treatment from January 2013 to December 2022. The study consisted of an observational, descriptive, retrospective analysis of prespecified clinical data. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the data between the PEG group and the non-PEG group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for covariance analysis. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare proportional data and Student's t-test was used to assess the differences in continuous data. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. P-values of <0.05 were considered to be indicative of statistical significance. The SPSS Statistics version 28.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) was used to perform all statistical evaluations. Results: We identified 90 eligible patients diagnosed with local advanced HNC who had received definitive CCRT with three weekly cycles of cisplatin as follows: 44 with a prophylactic PEG tube and 46 without a prophylactic PEG tube. Most patients were male (84.4%) and 50% of patients were diagnosed with stage IVa HNC at the time of diagnosis. There wasn't an effect of PEG placement on BMI at the end of CCRT after controlling for the effect of baseline BMI (F {1.84}=0.065 {p=0.799}). In the study population, BMI was significantly lower after CCRT (21.30 kg/m(2 )vs. 23.97 kg/m(2)), t (86)=12.389, p<0.001. In the subgroup with baseline BMI <18.5 kg/m(2) (15 patients), 90% of patients with prophylactic PEG were able to complete the three planned cycles of chemotherapy vs. 66.7% in the non-PEG group. Ten patients in the PEG group (22.7%) referred feeding tube dependency. Patients with dysphagia were 3.2 times more likely to have placed prophylactic PEG (p=0.007). The difference in overall survival and progression-free survival between the two groups was not statistically significant (p=0.57 and p=0.497, respectively). Conclusion: In this study using real‐world data, we found a potentially protective effect of PEG in underweight patients with locally advanced HNC performing CCRT in order to complete three cycles of treatment.