Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Radiological Gastrostomy (PRG) as a Rescue Measure for Enteral Feeding in Patients with Advanced Head, Neck, and Upper Digestive Malignancies

Abstract

Background Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy is an established mode of enteral feeding for nutritional support for patients with dysphagia from upper digestive tract malignancy. Its role as a rescue measure in patients with advanced malignancy, presenting with absolute dysphagia and failure of nasogastric tube insertion has not been well established.

Purpose This study was performed to assess technical success and long-term outcomes of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (push type) for nutritional support for patients with absolute dysphagia as a last ditch nonsurgical rescue effort for enteral access.

Materials and Methods This was a prospective observational study of 31 patients who underwent push-type percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy over a period of 2 years (March 2017–March 2019). The study was a part of a larger trial approved by the institutional ethics committee. Patients were followed till the removal of tube, death, or 1 year, whichever was earlier. Gastrostomy tube-related problems and complications were documented. Descriptive summary statistics were employed to analyze the success rate and complications.

Results Thirty-one patients with mean age 56 years (26–78 years) including 18 males and 13 females with head and neck squamous cell cancer and esophageal cancer presenting with absolute dysphagia or significant dysphagia with failed nasogastric or endoscopic enteral access were included. Overall technical success was 93.5% (29/31), achieved in 26/31 patients with just fluoroscopy guidance and 3/5 patients with computed tomography guidance. One major (3.3%) and two minor (6.5%) complications were encountered. Five out of 29 gastrostomy tubes had to be exchanged, after a mean of 44 days (1–128 days) after insertion.

Conclusion Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy is a safe and effective intervention even as a rescue measure in patients with absolute dysphagia from advanced upper digestive tract malignancies.

Keywords

gastrostomy - head and neck cancer - esophageal cancer

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Oktober 2022

• References

• 1 GLOBOCAN. (IARC) Section of Cancer Surveillance 2018. Accessed May 10, 2022 at: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/356-india-fact-sheets.pdf
• 2 Logemann JA, Rademaker AW, Pauloski BR. et al. Site of disease and treatment protocol as correlates of swallowing function in patients with head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiation. Head Neck 2006; 28 (01) 64-73
• 3 Russi EG, Corvò R, Merlotti A. et al. Swallowing dysfunction in head and neck cancer patients treated by radiotherapy: review and recommendations of the supportive task group of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology. Cancer Treat Rev 2012; 38 (08) 1033-1049
• 4 Nugent B, Lewis S, O'Sullivan JM. Enteral feeding methods for nutritional management in patients with head and neck cancers being treated with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013 (01) CD007904-CD
• 5 Strijbos D, Keszthelyi D, Bogie RMM. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on outcomes and complications of percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 52 (09) 753-764
• 6 Thornton FJ, Fotheringham T, Haslam PJ, McGrath FP, Keeling F, Lee MJ. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy with and without T-fastener gastropexy: a randomized comparison study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2002; 25 (06) 467-471
• 7 Tyng CJ, Santos EFV, Guerra LFA, Bitencourt AGV, Barbosa PNVP, Chojniak R. Computed tomography-guided percutaneous gastrostomy: initial experience at a cancer center. Radiol Bras 2017; 50 (02) 109-114
• 8 Khalilzadeh O, Baerlocher MO, Shyn PB. et al. Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28 (10) 1432-1437.e3
• 9 Silas AM, Pearce LF, Lestina LS. et al. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a comparison of indications, complications and outcomes in 370 patients. Eur J Radiol 2005; 56 (01) 84-90
• 10 Strijbos D, Keszthelyi D, Gilissen LPL. et al. Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7 (11) E1487-E1495
• 11 Siu J, Fuller K, Nadler A. et al. Metastasis to gastrostomy sites from upper aerodigestive tract malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91 (05) 1005-1014.e17
• 12 Thornton FJ, Varghese JC, Haslam PJ, McGrath FP, Keeling F, Lee MJ. Percutaneous gastrostomy in patients who fail or are unsuitable for endoscopic gastrostomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2000; 23 (04) 279-284
• 13 Covarrubias DA, O'Connor OJ, McDermott S, Arellano RS. Radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy: review of potential complications and approach to managing the unexpected outcome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200 (04) 921-931
• 14 Hiki N, Maetani I, Suzuki Y, Washizawa N, Fukuda T, Yamaguchi T. Tokyo Standard PEG Study Group. Reduced risk of peristomal infection of direct percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: comparison with the pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207 (05) 737-744
• 15 Venkatesan AM, Kundu S, Sacks D. et al; Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. Practice guidelines for adult antibiotic prophylaxis during vascular and interventional radiology procedures. Written by the Standards of Practice Committee for the Society of Interventional Radiology and Endorsed by the Cardiovascular Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and Canadian Interventional Radiology Association [corrected]. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21 (11) 1611-1630 , quiz 1631