This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Neoplasms of Head & Neck  • Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Sara S. Cheng, MD, PhD; Jeffrey E. Terrell, MD; Carol R. Bradford, MD; David L. Ronis, PhD; Karen E. Fowler, MPH; Mark E. Prince, MD; Theodoros N. Teknos, MD; Gregory T. Wolf, MD; Sonia A. Duffy, PhD, RN

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:655-661.

Objective  To identify clinical factors associated with enteral feeding tube placement in a head and neck cancer population.

Design  A self-administered survey was given to patients being treated for head and neck cancer while they were waiting to be seen in 1 of 4 otolaryngology clinics. The post hoc analysis presented here combines survey and chart review data to determine clinical and demographic variables associated with feeding tube placement.

Setting  Four otolaryngology clinics.

Patients  Otolaryngology clinic patients being treated for head and neck cancer.

Main Outcome Measure  Enteral feeding tube placement.

Results  Of the 724 patients eligible for this study, 14% (n = 98) required enteral feeding tube placement. Multivariate analysis found the following variables to be independently associated with feeding tube placement: oropharynx/hypopharynx tumor site (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; P = .01), tumor stage III/IV (OR, 2.1; P = .03), flap reconstruction (OR, 2.2; P = .004), current tracheotomy (OR, 8.0; P<.001), chemotherapy (OR, 2.6; P<.001), and increased age (OR, 1.3; P = .02). In addition, there was a curvilinear relationship between time since treatment and feeding tube placement, with about 30% having a feeding tube at 1 month posttreatment, tapering down during the first 3 years to about 8% and leveling off thereafter.

Conclusions  Identification of factors associated with an increased risk of feeding tube placement may allow physicians to better counsel patients regarding the possibility of feeding tube placement during treatment. Since feeding tube placement has been linked to decreased quality of life in head and neck cancer, such counseling is an integral part of the clinical management of these patients.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (Drs Cheng, Terrell, Bradford, Prince, Teknos, Wolf, and Duffy) and Psychiatry (Dr Duffy), University of Michigan Medical School, Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management & Outcomes Research (Drs Ronis and Duffy and Ms Fowler), Department of Otolaryngology, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System (Dr Prince), and School of Nursing, University of Michigan (Dr Ronis), Ann Arbor. Dr Cheng is now with the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Risk Factors Predicting Aspiration After Free Flap Reconstruction of Oral Cavity and Oropharyngeal Defects
Smith et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;134:1205-1208.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Depressive Symptoms, Smoking, Drinking, and Quality of Life Among Head and Neck Cancer Patients
Duffy et al.
Psychosomatics 2007;48:142-148.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT