Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMitchell, Scott
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, John P.
dc.contributor.authorBhatti, Harsimrandeep
dc.contributor.authorKachaamy, Toufic
dc.contributor.authorWeber, Jeffrey
dc.contributor.authorWeiss, Glen J.
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-31T18:10:39Z
dc.date.available2018-01-31T18:10:39Z
dc.date.issued2017-11-29
dc.identifier.citationA retrospective matched cohort study evaluating the effects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes on nutritional status and survival in patients with advanced gastroesophageal malignancies undergoing systemic anti-cancer therapy 2017, 12 (11):e0188628 PLOS ONEen
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.pmid29186164
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0188628
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/626471
dc.description.abstractBackground Many patients with cancer or other systemic illnesses can experience malnutrition. One way to mitigate malnutrition is by insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube (PEG tube). The goal of this retrospective matched cohort study is to evaluate if PEG tube placement improved nutritional status and overall survival (OS) in advanced gastro-esophageal (GE) cancer patients who are undergoing anti-neoplastic therapy. Methods GE cancer patients who were treated and evaluated by a nutritionist and had at least 2 nutritionist follow-up visits were identified. Patients with PEG tube were matched to patients that did not undergo PEG placement (non-PEG). Clinical characteristics, GE symptoms reported at nutrition follow-up visits, and OS were recorded. Results 20 PEG and 18 non-PEG cases met criteria for further analyses. After correction for multiple testing, there were no OS differences between PEG and non-PEG, treatment naive and previously treated. However, PEG esophageal carcinoma has statistically significant inferior OS compared with non-PEG esophageal carcinoma. PEG placement did not significantly reduce the proportion of patients with weight loss between the initial nutrition assessment and 12-week follow-up. Conclusions In this small study, PEG placement had inferior OS outcome for GE esophageal carcinoma, no improvement in OS for other evaluated groups, and did not reduce weight loss between baseline and 12-week follow-up. Unless there is prospective randomized trial that can show superiority of PEG placement in this population, PEG placement in this group cannot be endorsed.
dc.description.sponsorshipWestern Regional Medical Centeren
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherPUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCEen
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188628en
dc.rights© 2017 Mitchell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleA retrospective matched cohort study evaluating the effects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes on nutritional status and survival in patients with advanced gastroesophageal malignancies undergoing systemic anti-cancer therapyen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Coll Med Phoenixen
dc.identifier.journalPLOS ONEen
dc.description.noteOpen access journal.en
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-12T01:10:02Z
html.description.abstractBackground Many patients with cancer or other systemic illnesses can experience malnutrition. One way to mitigate malnutrition is by insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube (PEG tube). The goal of this retrospective matched cohort study is to evaluate if PEG tube placement improved nutritional status and overall survival (OS) in advanced gastro-esophageal (GE) cancer patients who are undergoing anti-neoplastic therapy. Methods GE cancer patients who were treated and evaluated by a nutritionist and had at least 2 nutritionist follow-up visits were identified. Patients with PEG tube were matched to patients that did not undergo PEG placement (non-PEG). Clinical characteristics, GE symptoms reported at nutrition follow-up visits, and OS were recorded. Results 20 PEG and 18 non-PEG cases met criteria for further analyses. After correction for multiple testing, there were no OS differences between PEG and non-PEG, treatment naive and previously treated. However, PEG esophageal carcinoma has statistically significant inferior OS compared with non-PEG esophageal carcinoma. PEG placement did not significantly reduce the proportion of patients with weight loss between the initial nutrition assessment and 12-week follow-up. Conclusions In this small study, PEG placement had inferior OS outcome for GE esophageal carcinoma, no improvement in OS for other evaluated groups, and did not reduce weight loss between baseline and 12-week follow-up. Unless there is prospective randomized trial that can show superiority of PEG placement in this population, PEG placement in this group cannot be endorsed.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
journal.pone.0188628.pdf
Size:
2.024Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2017 Mitchell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2017 Mitchell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.