Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26306565›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2015

New radiotherapy techniques do not reduce the need for nutrition intervention in patients with head and neck cancer.

T Brown, M Banks, B G M Hughes, C Lin, L M Kenny, J D Bauer

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Nutritional parameters associated with hospital admissions in patients being treated for head and neck cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T BrownCentre for Dietetics Research (C-DIET-R), School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
M BanksDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
B G M HughesCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
C LinCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
L M KennyCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
J D BauerCentre for Dietetics Research (C-DIET-R), School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesSince 2007, our institution has used validated guidelines for the insertion of proactive gastrostomy feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer. Helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) delivered by Tomotherapy, is an advanced radiotherapy technique introduced at our centre in 2010. This form of therapy reduces long-term treatment-related toxicity to normal tissues. The aim of this study is to compare weight change and need for tube feeding following H-IMRT (n=53) with patients that would have previously been treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n=134). SUBJECTS/

methodsPatients with head and neck cancer assessed as high nutritional risk with recommendation for proactive gastrostomy were identified from cohorts from 2007 to 2008 and 2010 to 2011. Retrospective data were collected on clinical factors, weight change from baseline to completion of treatment, incidence of severe weight loss (⩾ 10%) and tube feeding. Statistical analyses to compare outcomes between the two treatments included χ(2)-test, Fisher's exact and two-sample Wilcoxon tests (P<0.05).

resultsThe H-IMRT cohort had higher proportions of patients with definitive chemoradiotherapy (P=0.032) and more advanced N stage (P<0.001). Nutrition outcomes were not significantly different between H-IMRT and conformal radiotherapy, respectively: need for proactive gastrostomy (n=49, 92% versus n=115, 86%, P=0.213), median percentage weight change (-7.2% versus -7.3%, P=0.573) and severe weight loss incidence (28% versus 27%, P=0.843).

conclusionsBoth groups had median weight loss >5% and high incidences of tube feeding and severe weight loss. Nutrition intervention remains critical in this patient population, despite advances in radiotherapy techniques, and no changes to current management are recommended.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionNutritional StatusWeight LossAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDeglutition DisordersFemaleGastrostomyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID26306565
OpenAlexW2120952233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.