Objective: Assess the improvement of cluster enteral nutrition treatment for head and neck cancer patients. Methods: 104 participants was invested to join our study from December 2016 to December 2018. They were randomly assigned to intervention group and control group in study beginning. For intervention group, we provide additional cluster enteral nutrition treatment to them. In the process, we use the questionnaires, interview and follow-up to collect the data of them, the questionnaires included Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and Nutritional risk screening. The data shows the changing of nutrition status of participants in the process. Result: Base on albumin and transferrin of participants, the intervention had better improvement than that of control group (1.97±0.24 vs 1.61±0.20, 56.72±2.33 vs 50.17±2.01). In dietary assessment, intervention group had higher score than control group (11.34±1.61 vs 9.04±1.35). But in nutritional risk assessment, the change gap was not significant in the result. In different complications, the most of complication was nausea and vomiting in the participants [16 (30.77%) vs 7 (13.46%)]. Conclusion: the cluster enteral nutrition treatment had strongly influence for nutrition status of head and neck cancer patients. Moreover, the patients of intervention group had better nutrition status after cluster enteral nutrition treatment. Besides, the cluster enteral nutrition treatment provide better restore to head and neck cancer patients.
| Published in | Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research (Volume 8, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14 |
| Page(s) | 21-24 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Head and Neck Cancer, Nutrition, Complications
| [1] | Gillison ML et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2019; 393 (10166): 40–50. |
| [2] | Dorth JA, Patel PR, Broadwater G, et al. Incidence and risk factors of significant carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic survivors of head and neck cancer after radiotherapy. Head Neck 2014; 36: 215–219. |
| [3] | Carpenter DJ, Mowery YM, Broadwater G, et al. The risk of carotid artery stenosis in head and neck cancer patients after radiation therapy. Oral Oncol 2018; 80: 9–15. |
| [4] | Pinna R, Campus G, Cumbo E, Mura I, Milia E, Xerostomia induced by radiotherapy: an overview of the physiopathology, clinical evidence, and management of the oral damage, Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2015: 171-188. |
| [5] | Jensen SB, Pedersen AM, Vissink A, Andersen E, Brown CG, Davies AN, et al., A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: prevalence, severity and impact on quality of life, Support Care Cancer. 2016; 10 (8): 1039-1060. |
| [6] | Hatakeyama H et al. Osteoradionecrosis of the hyoid bone after intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer: MR imaging findings. Cancer Imaging 2017; 17 (1): 22. |
| [7] | Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65: 87–108. |
| [8] | Galbiatti AL, Padovani-Junior JA, Maníglia JV, Rodrigues CD, Pavarino ÉC, Goloni-Bertollo EM. Head and neck cancer: causes, prevention and treatment. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; 79: 239–247. |
| [9] | Raguse JD, Hossamo J, Tinhofer I, et al. Patient and treatment-related risk factors for osteoradionecrosis of the jaw in patients with head and neck cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2016; 121 (3): 215–21. |
| [10] | Unsal D, Mentes B, Akmansu M, Uner A, Oguz M, Pak Y. Evaluation of nutritional status in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016; 29: 183–188. |
| [11] | Mahdavi R, Faramarzi E, Mohammad-Zadeh M, Ghaeammaghami J, Jabbari MV. Consequences of radiotherapy on nutritional status, dietary intake, serum zinc and copper levels in patients with gastrointestinal tract and head and neck cancer. Saudi Med. J. 2017; 28: 435–440. |
| [12] | Platek AJ, Jayaprakash V, Merzianu M, et al. Smoking cessation is associated with improved survival in oropharynx cancer treated by chemoradiation. Laryngoscope. 2016; 126 (12): 2733–2738. |
| [13] | Kubrak C, Olson K, Jha N, Scrimger R, Parliament M, McCargar L, Koski S, Baracos VE. Clinical determinants of weight loss in patients receiving radiation and chemoirradiation for head and neck cancer: a prospective longitudinal view. Head Neck. 2013; 35: 695–703. |
| [14] | Lonbro S, Petersen GB, Andersen JR, Johansen J. Prediction of critical weight loss during radiation treatment in head and neck cancer patients is dependent on BMI. Support. Care Cancer. 2016; 24: 2101–2109. |
| [15] | Jager-Wittenaar H, Dijkstra PU, Vissink A, van der Laan BF, van Oort RP, Roodenburg JL. Critical weight loss in head and neck cancer-prevalence and risk factors at diagnosis: an explorative study. Support. Care Cancer. 2017; 15: 1045–1050. |
| [16] | Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A, Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68 (6): 394–424. |
| [17] | Rogers SN, Lowe D, Lowies C, Yeo ST, Allmark C, Mcavery D, Humphris GM, Robert Flavel R, Semple C, Thomas SJ, Kanatas A. Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial. BMC Canc. 2018; 18: 444. |
APA Style
Laoyan Weng, Yuyao Liu, Xiaofang Zhang, Wenhui Chen, Kaiyin He, et al. (2020). Assessing the Improvement of Cluster Enteral Nutrition Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer Patients. Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research, 8(1), 21-24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14
ACS Style
Laoyan Weng; Yuyao Liu; Xiaofang Zhang; Wenhui Chen; Kaiyin He, et al. Assessing the Improvement of Cluster Enteral Nutrition Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer Patients. J. Cancer Treat. Res. 2020, 8(1), 21-24. doi: 10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14
AMA Style
Laoyan Weng, Yuyao Liu, Xiaofang Zhang, Wenhui Chen, Kaiyin He, et al. Assessing the Improvement of Cluster Enteral Nutrition Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer Patients. J Cancer Treat Res. 2020;8(1):21-24. doi: 10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14,
author = {Laoyan Weng and Yuyao Liu and Xiaofang Zhang and Wenhui Chen and Kaiyin He and Huatong Wang},
title = {Assessing the Improvement of Cluster Enteral Nutrition Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer Patients},
journal = {Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research},
volume = {8},
number = {1},
pages = {21-24},
doi = {10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jctr.20200801.14},
abstract = {Objective: Assess the improvement of cluster enteral nutrition treatment for head and neck cancer patients. Methods: 104 participants was invested to join our study from December 2016 to December 2018. They were randomly assigned to intervention group and control group in study beginning. For intervention group, we provide additional cluster enteral nutrition treatment to them. In the process, we use the questionnaires, interview and follow-up to collect the data of them, the questionnaires included Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and Nutritional risk screening. The data shows the changing of nutrition status of participants in the process. Result: Base on albumin and transferrin of participants, the intervention had better improvement than that of control group (1.97±0.24 vs 1.61±0.20, 56.72±2.33 vs 50.17±2.01). In dietary assessment, intervention group had higher score than control group (11.34±1.61 vs 9.04±1.35). But in nutritional risk assessment, the change gap was not significant in the result. In different complications, the most of complication was nausea and vomiting in the participants [16 (30.77%) vs 7 (13.46%)]. Conclusion: the cluster enteral nutrition treatment had strongly influence for nutrition status of head and neck cancer patients. Moreover, the patients of intervention group had better nutrition status after cluster enteral nutrition treatment. Besides, the cluster enteral nutrition treatment provide better restore to head and neck cancer patients.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing the Improvement of Cluster Enteral Nutrition Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer Patients AU - Laoyan Weng AU - Yuyao Liu AU - Xiaofang Zhang AU - Wenhui Chen AU - Kaiyin He AU - Huatong Wang Y1 - 2020/03/10 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14 DO - 10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14 T2 - Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research JF - Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research JO - Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research SP - 21 EP - 24 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2376-7790 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jctr.20200801.14 AB - Objective: Assess the improvement of cluster enteral nutrition treatment for head and neck cancer patients. Methods: 104 participants was invested to join our study from December 2016 to December 2018. They were randomly assigned to intervention group and control group in study beginning. For intervention group, we provide additional cluster enteral nutrition treatment to them. In the process, we use the questionnaires, interview and follow-up to collect the data of them, the questionnaires included Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and Nutritional risk screening. The data shows the changing of nutrition status of participants in the process. Result: Base on albumin and transferrin of participants, the intervention had better improvement than that of control group (1.97±0.24 vs 1.61±0.20, 56.72±2.33 vs 50.17±2.01). In dietary assessment, intervention group had higher score than control group (11.34±1.61 vs 9.04±1.35). But in nutritional risk assessment, the change gap was not significant in the result. In different complications, the most of complication was nausea and vomiting in the participants [16 (30.77%) vs 7 (13.46%)]. Conclusion: the cluster enteral nutrition treatment had strongly influence for nutrition status of head and neck cancer patients. Moreover, the patients of intervention group had better nutrition status after cluster enteral nutrition treatment. Besides, the cluster enteral nutrition treatment provide better restore to head and neck cancer patients. VL - 8 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: