Trial reportHead & neck2025
Prophylactic Versus Reactive (PvR) Feeding in Patients Undergoing (Chemo)radiation in Head and Neck Cancers: Results of a Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Head & neck, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2026Pooled it
- Guidelines for nutrition in adults with head and neck cancer: The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Guideline
- Prophylactic Versus Reactive (PvR) Feeding in Patients Undergoing (Chemo)radiation in Head and Neck Cancers: Results of a Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial.Head & neck · 2025Trial
- Timing matters: gastrostomy placement and outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Comparison of Prophylactic Versus Reactive Tube Feeding Approaches on Weight Loss and Unplanned Hospital Admissions in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Chemoradiotherapy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal feeding strategy (Prophylactic vs. Reactive) during Radiation Therapy (RT) for Head and Neck Cancers (HNC) remains to be established.
methodsThis phase III trial randomized (1:1) patients of HNC to prophylactic [nasogastric tube (NGT) placed at least 1 day before RT starting] versus reactive arm (NGT when required). The primary endpoint was the incidence of significant weight loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were weight changes, tube duration, dependence, and compliance.
resultsDue to high denial rates, the trial was prematurely closed. Eighty-four patients (40-prophylactic, 44-reactive) were analyzed intention-to-treat. Seventeen patients (39%) required a reactive tube insertion. The proportion of patients with significant weight loss at 6 months in the prophylactic versus reactive arms was 13 (32.5%) versus 10 (15.9%), p = 0.44. The median tube duration was 56 days (IQR: 16.5-91) versus 47 days (IQR: 24-59), p = 0.255.
conclusionOur limited analysis found that a reactive NGT should be considered for most HNC patients undergoing RT.
trial registrationClinical trials registry of India: CTRI/2020/01/023049.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.