Nasogastric tube feeding improves nutritional status and physical state in esophageal cancer patients during chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective study

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer Vol. 31; no. 6; p. 341
• Main Authors: Wang, Shu-an, Dai, Wang-shu, Zhu, Jia-yu, Gao, Bo, Ren, Wei, Chen, Xiaotian
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.06.2023; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Body weight; Cancer; Cancer patients; Care and treatment; Chemoradiotherapy - adverse effects; Chemotherapy; Clinical outcomes; Enteral nutrition; Enteral Nutrition - methods; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy; Gastrointestinal diseases; Health aspects; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal - adverse effects; Intubation, Gastrointestinal - methods; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nursing; Nursing Research; Nutritional Status; Oncology; Oncology, Experimental; Pain Medicine; Physical fitness; Radiation therapy; Rehabilitation Medicine; Retrospective Studies; Physical state; Malnutrition; Nasogastric tube feeding; Esophageal cancer
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07780-w
• ISSN: 0941-4355

Objective To compare the complication rates, nutritional status, and physical state between esophageal cancer (EC) patients managed by nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding versus those managed by oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) during chemoradiotherapy. Methods EC patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy managed by nonintravenous nutritional support in our institute were retrospectively recruited and divided into an NGT group and an ONS group based on the nutritional support method. The main outcomes, including complications, nutritional status, and physical state, were compared between groups. Results The baseline characteristics of EC patients were comparable. There were no significant differences in the incidence of treatment interruption (13.04% vs. 14.71%, P  = 0.82), death (2.17% vs. 0.00%, P  = 0.84), or esophageal fistula (2.17% vs. 1.47%, P  = 1.00) between the NGT group and ONS group. Body weight loss and decrease in albumin level were significantly lower in the NGT group than in the ONS group (both P  < 0.05). EC patients in the NGT group had significantly lower Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) scores and significantly higher Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scores than patients in the ONS group (all P  < 0.05). The rates of grade > 2 esophagitis (10.00% vs. 27.59%, P  = 0.03) and grade > 2 bone marrow suppression (10.00% vs. 32.76%, P  = 0.01) were significantly lower in the NGT group than in the ONS group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of infection and upper gastrointestinal disorders or therapeutic efficacy between groups (all P  > 0.05). Conclusions EN through NGT feeding leads to significantly better nutritional status and physical state in EC patients during chemoradiotherapy than EN via ONS. NGT may also prevent myelosuppression and esophagitis..