↓ Skip to main content

Age most significant predictor of requiring enteral feeding in head-and-neck cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Age most significant predictor of requiring enteral feeding in head-and-neck cancer patients
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0408-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean Sachdev, Tamer Refaat, Ian D Bacchus, Vythialinga Sathiaseelan, Bharat B Mittal

Abstract

A significant number of patients treated for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) undergo enteral tube feeding. Data suggest that avoiding enteral feeding can prevent long-term tube dependence and disuse of the swallowing mechanism which has been linked to complications such as prolonged dysphagia and esophageal constriction. We examined detailed dosimetric and clinical parameters to better identify those at risk of requiring enteral feeding. One hundred patients with advanced stage HNSCC were retrospectively analyzed after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to a median dose of 70 Gy (range: 60-75 Gy) with concurrent chemotherapy in nearly all cases (97%). Patients with significant weight loss (>10%) in the setting of severely reduced oral intake were referred for placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. Detailed DVH parameters were collected for several structures. Univariate and multivariate analyses using logistic regression were used to determine clinical and dosimetric factors associated with needing enteral feeding. Dichotomous outcomes were tested using Fisher's exact test and continuous variables between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Thirty-three percent of patients required placement of an enteral feeding tube. The median time to tube placement was 25 days from start of treatment, after a median dose of 38 Gy. On univariate analysis, age (p = 0.0008), the DFH (Docetaxel/5-FU/Hydroxyurea) chemotherapy regimen (p = .042) and b.i.d treatment (P = 0.040) (used in limited cases on protocol) predicted need for enteral feeding. On multivariate analysis, age remained the single statistically significant factor (p = 0.003) regardless of other clinical features (e.g. BMI) and all radiation planning parameters. For patients 60 or older compared to younger adults, the odds ratio for needing enteral feeding was 4.188 (p = 0.0019). Older age was found to be the most significant risk factor for needing enteral feeding in patients with locally advanced HNSCC treated with multimodal treatment. Pending further validation, this would support maximizing early nutritional guidance, targeted supplementation, and symptomatic support for older adults (>60) undergoing chemoradiation. Such interventions and others (e.g. swallowing therapy) could possibly delay or minimize the use of enteral feeding, thereby helping avoid tube dependence and tube-associated long-term physiologic consequences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Other 13 12%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Unspecified 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 36 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,416,381
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#303
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,553
of 265,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#12
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.