Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34078309›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2021

Prophylactic gastrostomy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: results of a national survey among radiation oncologists.

Tatiana Dragan, Fréderic Duprez, André Van Gossum, Akos Gulyban, Sylvie Beauvois, Antoine Digonnet, Yassine Lalami, Dirk Van Gestel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prophylactic vs. reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis of survival and supportive care outcomes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tatiana DraganDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Head and Neck Unit), Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger Bordet - 1000 Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. tatiana.dragan@bordet.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3406-1683
Fréderic DuprezDepartment of Radiotherapy-Oncology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Gent, Ghent, Belgium.
André Van GossumConsultant at the Department of Gastroenterology and Clinical Nutrition, Hopital Erasme and Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
Akos GulybanMedical Physics Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
Sylvie BeauvoisDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Head and Neck Unit), Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger Bordet - 1000 Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Antoine DigonnetDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Yassine LalamiMedical Oncology Clinic, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Dirk Van GestelDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Head and Neck Unit), Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger Bordet - 1000 Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BEInstitut Jules Bordet · BEGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNutritional complications in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (LA-HNC) treated by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) often lead to placement of a prophylactic gastrostomy (PG) tube, while indication lacks harmonization. Our aim was to explore the current PG tube utilization among Belgian radiation oncology centers.

methodsA survey was distributed to all 24 Belgian Radiation oncology departments, with questions about the number of patient treated per year, whether the PG indication is discussed at the multidisciplinary board, placement technique, time of starting nutrition and removal, its impact on swallowing function and importance of clinical factors. For the latter Relative Importance and Discordance Indexes were calculated to describe the ranking and agreement.

resultsAll 24 centers submitted the questionnaire. Twenty three treat more than 20 head and neck (HNC) patients per year, while four (1 in 21-50; 3 in 51-100) are not discussing the gastrostomy tube indication at the multidisciplinary board. For the latter, endoscopic placement (68%) is the dominant technique, followed by the radiologic (16%) and laparoscopic (16%) methods. Seventy-five percent start the enteral nutrition when clinically indicated, 17% immediately and 8% from the start of radiotherapy. Majority of specialists (19/24) keep the gastrostomy tube until the patient assume an adequate oral feeding. Fifteen centres are considering PG decrease swallowing function. Regarding factors and their importance in the decision for the PG, foreseen irradiated volume reached highest importance, followed by 'anatomical site', 'patients' choice' and 'postoperative versus definitive' and 'local expertise', with decreasing importance respectively. Disagreement indexes showed moderate variation.

conclusionsThe use of a PG tube for LAHNC patients treated by CCRT shows disparity at national level. Prospective studies are needed to ensure proper indication of this supportive measure.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyEnteral NutritionGastrostomyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm StagingNutritional StatusNutrition DisordersPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prophylactic Surgical ProceduresProspective StudiesRadiation InjuriesRadiation OncologistsEndoscopic gastrostomyHead and neck cancerRadiotherapySurvey

Identifiers

PMID34078309
PMCPMC8171041
OpenAlexW3164573433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.