Q15. Which patients should be identified for prophylactic enteral feeding?

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Q15. Which patients should be identified for prophylactic enteral feeding?


It is important to distinguish between the different types of tube feeding, approaches (proactive versus reactive) and timing. Tube feeding can be provided via a nasogastric tube or a gastrostomy tube (which may be placed endoscopically, radiologically or surgically). A proactive approach to nutritional management is a feeding tube placed prior to treatment or surgery either in anticipation of its need (prophylactic gastrostomy) or due to significant nutritional compromise or dysphagia at diagnosis (therapeutic gastrostomy). A reactive approach to nutritional management is a feeding tube placed post operatively to manage post operative dysphagia or during treatment only when it becomes clinically indicated due to significant nutritional compromise or dysphagia. In these cases this is a reactive feeding tube, and may be either a nasogastric tube or gastrostomy. Prophylactic enteral feeding is used in the anticipation they will require nutrition support for a prolonged period of time both during treatment and recovery. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), nutrition support guidelines recommend considering a gastrostomy over a nasogastric tube if feeding is required for longer than a period of 4 weeks[1]. In patients with head and neck cancer, this is most commonly achieved via placement of a prophylactic gastrostomy, as these devices are designed for longer term tube use. A number of prognosis studies have looked at which patient groups are more likely to require a gastrostomy, as placement prophylactically avoids the difficulties of undergoing a gastrostomy placement procedure once acute toxicities of treatment are present e.g. mucositis, oesophagitis and neutropenia. It should also be acknowledged that some patients may be unsuitable for a gastrostomy or may refuse this more invasive procedure, and so they will require the use of a nasogastric tube. See Q16 and Q19 for more details on how to select the most appropriate type of enteral feeding device.

In clinical practice, predicting which patients may benefit from prophylactic enteral feeding according to their treatment plan (surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy or definitive radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy) would be considered useful. However, the study designs frequently result in recruitment of mixed treatment populations, limiting capacity to stratify data meaningfully into groups with adequate patient numbers. It may also ignore the significant patient-related factors that should be considered.

There are two level III-2 neutral quality studies in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy which conclude that other factors are associated with the use of tube feeding and include: age, tumour size (T3/T4), tumour site (larynx, hypopharynx) [2]; and T4 tumours and tumours of the hypopharynx, oral cavity and oropharynx [3]. There is one level III-3 positive quality study [4] which predicts pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, preoperative radiotherapy, oropharynx and stage III-IV cancers to be associated with gastrostomy use. There are four level III-3 neutral quality studies concluding; increasing radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles, T3, T4 [5], normal or low body mass index (BMI <25) [6], stage IV cancer, combined therapies, preoperative weight loss >4.5kg (10lbs) [7], and tumours of the pharynx [7][8] are also associated with tube feeding.

One level III-3 neutral quality study examined predictive factors for gastrostomy placement in surgically treated patients and identified low body mass index, size and localisation of tumour (posterior mouth floor or base of tongue), lymph node affection, resection of the root of the tongue or oropharynx region, and neck dissection as decisive [9].

There have been 19 level IV studies; three positive quality [10][11][12], 14 neutral quality [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], and two negative quality [27][28].

These lower level studies also support findings from the previous higher level studies for the following factors to be associated with the use of tube feeding: advanced stage of tumour (stage 3/4) [14][16][17][11][18][20][21][27][28], chemoradiotherapy [13][14][17][18][27][25], and tumours of the hypopharynx [18][27] or oral cavity/oropharynx [21][22][27][25].

Some studies have also found the following other factors to be associated with the use of tube feeding: treatment field length >82mm for “boost” phase radiotherapy [15]; multimodality treatments [13][16][20]; bone resection and flap surgeries [16][20][27]; and tumour resection with adjuvant radiotherapy [28]. Jack et al. further demonstrated pre-operative dietary texture to be associated with tube feeding. Specifically, those managing only tube feeds, fluids or soft diets pre-operatively were significantly more likely to require percutaneous gastrostomy tube insertion than those on normal or near normal diet textures [28].

In addition, factors associated with more severe weight loss were cancers of the nasopharynx and base of tongue [19], oropharynx [13], all sites except the larynx, higher body weight pre treatment, dysphagia/odynophagia pre treatment, lower functional status, stage II disease [12] and tumour stage[24]. One level IV neutral study [23] has found that when using the PG-SGA, patients who had pre treatment symptoms of anorexia, dysphagia and mouth sores, were predictors of reduced dietary intake and weight loss, and these patients were more likely to start losing weight earlier during treatment. Pre treatment weight loss was associated with more severe weight loss during treatment [19] and a higher need for tube feeding during treatment [13]. One systematic review on mucositis and outcomes indicated in the sub-analysis that grade III-IV mucositis was significantly associated with requirement for a feeding tube [10].

There has been one questionnaire disseminated to centres across the UK[29] which reviewed opinions of the multidisciplinary team on decision making for gastrostomy insertion. This study concluded that there was no national consensus in the UK, but the most common factors which influenced decisions were pre treatment swallowing function, pre treatment weight loss, low BMI and patient choice. Another study[30] reported that 11/23 patients in their case series with a prophylactic gastrostomy did not use their tube, however nutrition outcomes and dietetic intervention were not reported. There were no criteria for gastrostomy insertion and use was not found to be correlated with diagnosis, stage or treatment.

A level IV study described swallowing and nutrition guidelines developed from a literature review, which aimed to identify high-risk patients for proactive gastrostomy. Sensitivity of the guidelines to predict the need for proactive gastrostomy was 54%, specificity 93%, positive predictive value 82%, and negative predictive value 77%. This is the first set of guidelines to be validated for ability to predict the need for a gastrostomy and assist the multidisciplinary team in decision making on the appropriateness and timing of tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer[26].

Back to top

Recommendation Grade
Prophylactic enteral feeding should be considered to improve nutritional status, cost and patient outcomes for patients who have T4 or hypopharyngeal tumours undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Other patient groups should be considered by the multidisciplinary team on an individual basis dependent on other clinical factors such as tumour site, staging, effect of multi-modality treatments, radiotherapy treatment fields and dose, type of surgical procedure, nutritional status, dysphagia and social support.


Back to top


  1. Arends J, Bodoky G, Bozzetti F, Fearon K, Muscaritoli M, Selga G, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr 2006 Apr;25(2):245-59 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16697500.
  2. Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, Garden AS, Weber RS, Cooper JS, et al. Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. J Clin Oncol 2008 Jul 20;26(21):3582-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559875.
  3. Ahmed KA, Samant S, Vieira F. Gastrostomy tubes in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2005 Jan;115(1):44-7 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630364.
  4. Chepeha DB, Annich G, Pynnonen MA, Beck J, Wolf GT, Teknos TN, et al. Pectoralis major myocutaneous flap vs revascularized free tissue transfer: complications, gastrostomy tube dependence, and hospitalization. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004 Feb;130(2):181-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14967747.
  5. Gokhale AS, McLaughlin BT, Flickinger JC, Beriwal S, Heron DE, Ferris RL, et al. Clinical and dosimetric factors associated with a prolonged feeding tube requirement in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for head and neck cancers. Ann Oncol 2010 Jan;21(1):145-51 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602566.
  6. McRackan TR, Watkins JM, Herrin AE, Garrett-Mayer EM, Sharma AK, Day TA, et al. Effect of body mass index on chemoradiation outcomes in head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2008 Jul;118(7):1180-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18475213.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Gardine RL, Kokal WA, Beatty JD, Riihimaki DU, Wagman LD, Terz JJ. Predicting the need for prolonged enteral supplementation in the patient with head and neck cancer. Am J Surg 1988 Jul;156(1):63-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3134827.
  8. Ishiki H, Onozawa Y, Kojima T, Hironaka S, Fukutomi A, Yasui H, et al. Nutrition support for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with chemoradiotherapy: how often and how long? ISRN Oncol 2012;2012:274739 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22518330.
  9. Wermker K, Jung S, Hüppmeier L, Joos U, Kleinheinz J. Prediction model for early percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer treatment. Oral Oncol 2012 Apr;48(4):355-60 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22154128.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Trotti A, Bellm LA, Epstein JB, Frame D, Fuchs HJ, Gwede CK, et al. Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review. Radiother Oncol 2003 Mar;66(3):253-62 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12742264.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Akst LM, Chan J, Elson P, Saxton J, Strome M, Adelstein D. Functional outcomes following chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004 Dec;131(6):950-7 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15577796.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Nourissat A, Bairati I, Samson E, Fortin A, Gélinas M, Nabid A, et al. Predictors of weight loss during radiotherapy in patients with stage I or II head and neck cancer. Cancer 2010 May 1;116(9):2275-83 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20187097.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Nugent B, Parker MJ, McIntyre IA. Nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer. J Hum Nutr Diet 2010 Jun;23(3):277-84 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20337841.
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 Lawson JD, Gaultney J, Saba N, Grist W, Davis L, Johnstone PA. Percutaneous feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer: rethinking prophylactic placement for patients undergoing chemoradiation. Am J Otolaryngol 2009;30(4):244-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19563935.
  15. 15.0 15.1 Poulsen MG, Riddle B, Keller J, Porceddu SV, Tripcony L. Predictors of acute grade 4 swallowing toxicity in patients with stages III and IV squamous carcinoma of the head and neck treated with radiotherapy alone. Radiother Oncol 2008 May;87(2):253-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18410976.
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Avery C, Shenoy S, Shetty S, Siegmund C, Mazhar I, Taub N. The prospective experience of a maxillofacial surgeon with the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008 Feb;37(2):140-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18023146.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Kornguth DG, Garden AS, Zheng Y, Dahlstrom KR, Wei Q, Sturgis EM. Gastrostomy in oropharyngeal cancer patients with ERCC4 (XPF) germline variants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005 Jul 1;62(3):665-71 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15936543.
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Mekhail TM, Adelstein DJ, Rybicki LA, Larto MA, Saxton JP, 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 May 1;91(9):1785-90 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11335904.
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 Beaver ME, Matheny KE, Roberts DB, Myers JN. Predictors of weight loss during radiation therapy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001 Dec;125(6):645-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11743469.
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Schweinfurth JM, Boger GN, Feustel PJ. Preoperative risk assessment for gastrostomy tube placement in head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 2001 May;23(5):376-82 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11295811.
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 Ringstrom E, Matthews TW, Lampe HB, Currie C. Role of percutaneous gastrostomy tubes in the postoperative care of patients with cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx. J Otolaryngol 1999 Apr;28(2):68-72 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10212871.
  22. 22.0 22.1 Beaver ME, Myers JN, Griffenberg L, Waugh K. Percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy tube placement in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998 Oct;124(10):1141-4 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776193.
  23. 23.0 23.1 Kubrak C, Olson K, Jha N, Jensen L, McCargar L, Seikaly H, et al. Nutrition impact symptoms: key determinants of reduced dietary intake, weight loss, and reduced functional capacity of patients with head and neck cancer before treatment. Head Neck 2010 Mar;32(3):290-300 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19626639.
  24. 24.0 24.1 Ehrsson YT, Langius-Eklöf A, Laurell G. Nutritional surveillance and weight loss in head and neck cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2011 Apr 19 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21503674.
  25. 25.0 25.1 25.2 Locher JL, Bonner JA, Carroll WR, Caudell JJ, Kilgore ML, Ritchie CS, et al. Gastrostomy tube placement and use in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2012 Mar;34(3):422-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21604317.
  26. 26.0 26.1 Brown TE, Spurgin AL, Ross L, Tripcony L, Keller J, Hughes BG, et al. Validated swallowing and nutrition guidelines for patients with head and neck cancer: identification of high-risk patients for proactive gastrostomy. Head Neck 2013 Oct;35(10):1385-91 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22972623.
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 Cheng SS, Terrell JE, Bradford CR, Ronis DL, Fowler KE, Prince ME, et al. Variables associated with feeding tube placement in head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006 Jun;132(6):655-61 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16785412.
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 Jack DR, Dawson FR, Reilly JE, Shoaib T. Guideline for prophylactic feeding tube insertion in patients undergoing resection of head and neck cancers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012 May;65(5):610-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22137826.
  29. Moor JW, Patterson J, Kelly C, Paleri V. Prophylactic gastrostomy before chemoradiation in advanced head and neck cancer: a multiprofessional web-based survey to identify current practice and to analyse decision making. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2010 Apr;22(3):192-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20227861.
  30. Madhoun MF, Blankenship MM, Blankenship DM, Krempl GA, Tierney WM. Prophylactic PEG placement in head and neck cancer: how many feeding tubes are unused (and unnecessary)? World J Gastroenterol 2011 Feb 28;17(8):1004-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21448351.

Back to top