Cargando…

Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND: Weight loss remains significant in patients with head and neck cancer, despite prophylactic gastrostomy and intensive dietary counseling. The aim of this study was to improve outcomes utilising an early nutrition intervention. METHODS: Patients with head and neck cancer at a tertiary hos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brown, Teresa E, Banks, Merrilyn D, Hughes, Brett G M, Lin, Charles Y, Kenny, Lizbeth M, Bauer, Judith D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28535154
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.138
_version_ 1783251768084267008
author Brown, Teresa E
Banks, Merrilyn D
Hughes, Brett G M
Lin, Charles Y
Kenny, Lizbeth M
Bauer, Judith D
author_facet Brown, Teresa E
Banks, Merrilyn D
Hughes, Brett G M
Lin, Charles Y
Kenny, Lizbeth M
Bauer, Judith D
author_sort Brown, Teresa E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Weight loss remains significant in patients with head and neck cancer, despite prophylactic gastrostomy and intensive dietary counseling. The aim of this study was to improve outcomes utilising an early nutrition intervention. METHODS: Patients with head and neck cancer at a tertiary hospital in Australia referred for prophylactic gastrostomy prior to curative intent treatment were eligible for this single centre randomised controlled trial. Exclusions included severe malnutrition or dysphagia. Patients were assigned following computer-generated randomisation sequence with allocation concealment to either intervention or standard care. The intervention group commenced supplementary tube feeding immediately following tube placement. Primary outcome measure was percentage weight loss at three months post treatment. RESULTS: Recruitment completed June 2015 with 70 patients randomised to standard care (66 complete cases) and 61 to intervention (56 complete cases). Following intention-to-treat analysis, linear regression found no effect of the intervention on weight loss (10.9±6.6% standard care vs 10.8±5.6% intervention, P=0.930) and this remained non-significant on multivariable analysis (P=0.624). No other differences were found for quality of life or clinical outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The early intervention did not improve outcomes, but poor adherence to nutrition recommendations impacted on potential outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5520203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55202032018-06-27 Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer Brown, Teresa E Banks, Merrilyn D Hughes, Brett G M Lin, Charles Y Kenny, Lizbeth M Bauer, Judith D Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: Weight loss remains significant in patients with head and neck cancer, despite prophylactic gastrostomy and intensive dietary counseling. The aim of this study was to improve outcomes utilising an early nutrition intervention. METHODS: Patients with head and neck cancer at a tertiary hospital in Australia referred for prophylactic gastrostomy prior to curative intent treatment were eligible for this single centre randomised controlled trial. Exclusions included severe malnutrition or dysphagia. Patients were assigned following computer-generated randomisation sequence with allocation concealment to either intervention or standard care. The intervention group commenced supplementary tube feeding immediately following tube placement. Primary outcome measure was percentage weight loss at three months post treatment. RESULTS: Recruitment completed June 2015 with 70 patients randomised to standard care (66 complete cases) and 61 to intervention (56 complete cases). Following intention-to-treat analysis, linear regression found no effect of the intervention on weight loss (10.9±6.6% standard care vs 10.8±5.6% intervention, P=0.930) and this remained non-significant on multivariable analysis (P=0.624). No other differences were found for quality of life or clinical outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The early intervention did not improve outcomes, but poor adherence to nutrition recommendations impacted on potential outcomes. Nature Publishing Group 2017-06-27 2017-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5520203/ /pubmed/28535154 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.138 Text en Copyright © 2017 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Brown, Teresa E
Banks, Merrilyn D
Hughes, Brett G M
Lin, Charles Y
Kenny, Lizbeth M
Bauer, Judith D
Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer
title Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer
title_full Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer
title_fullStr Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer
title_full_unstemmed Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer
title_short Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer
title_sort randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28535154
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.138
work_keys_str_mv AT brownteresae randomisedcontrolledtrialofearlyprophylacticfeedingvsstandardcareinpatientswithheadandneckcancer
AT banksmerrilynd randomisedcontrolledtrialofearlyprophylacticfeedingvsstandardcareinpatientswithheadandneckcancer
AT hughesbrettgm randomisedcontrolledtrialofearlyprophylacticfeedingvsstandardcareinpatientswithheadandneckcancer
AT lincharlesy randomisedcontrolledtrialofearlyprophylacticfeedingvsstandardcareinpatientswithheadandneckcancer
AT kennylizbethm randomisedcontrolledtrialofearlyprophylacticfeedingvsstandardcareinpatientswithheadandneckcancer
AT bauerjudithd randomisedcontrolledtrialofearlyprophylacticfeedingvsstandardcareinpatientswithheadandneckcancer