NCCN: Continuing Education
Accreditation Statement
This activity has been designated to meet the educational needs of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists involved in the management of patients with cancer. There is no fee for this article. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. NCCN designates this journal-based CE activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
NCCN is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center‘s Commission on Accreditation.
This activity is accredited for 1.0 contact hour. Accreditation as a provider refers to recognition of educational activities only; accredited status does not imply endorsement by NCCN or ANCC of any commercial products discussed/displayed in conjunction with the educational activity. Kristina M. Gregory, RN, MSN, OCN, is our nurse planner for this educational activity.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education. NCCN designates this continuing education activity for 1.0 contact hour(s) (0.1 CEUs) of continuing education credit in states that recognize ACPE accredited providers. This is a knowledge-based activity. UAN: 0836-0000-13-013-H01-P
All clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CE activity: 1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; 2) study the education content; 3) take the posttest with a 66% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at http://education.nccn.org/node/27285; and 4) view/print certificate.
Release date: August 22, 2013; Expiration date: August 22, 2014
Learning Objectives:
Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:
Integrate into professional practice the updates to NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers
Describe the rational behind the decision-making process for developing the NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers
NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus
Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.
All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2013
Version 2.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11, 8; 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0113
Overview
A new section on “Principles of Nutrition” was recently added to the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Head and Neck Cancers. This new section outlines the management of nutrition and supportive care for patients with head and neck cancers who are prone to weight loss, which can often be severe, as a result of treatment-related toxicity, disease, and health behaviors.1 Multidisciplinary evaluation is integral to minimizing or decreasing weight loss and should involve a registered dietitian and a speech-language/swallowing therapist.
Before treatment, patients with head and neck cancer are prone to weight loss because they may have difficulty swallowing from pain or obstruction caused by their tumor; patients are also at risk for dehydration. Although multimodality treatment for head and neck cancers is improving outcomes, it can be associated with severe toxicities.1-3 Many patients with head and neck cancers will receive radiation-based treatments and should receive dietary counseling before treatment. Dysphagia, odynophagia, xerostomia, and dysgeusia are common complications contributing to nutrition problems.1,2,4-10 Surgery can lead to functional impairment regarding chewing and swallowing; chemotherapy is often associated with oral mucositis, nausea, and vomiting.1
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2013
Version 2.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11, 8; 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0113
Patients with head and neck cancers who have had significant weight loss (>10% ideal body weight) clearly need nutritional evaluation and close monitoring of their weight to prevent further loss.4,11 Therefore, patients should receive nutritional evaluation before and after treatment to assess the need for interventions (eg, enteral support via feeding tubes).12,13 Some patients may require ongoing follow-up if they have chronic nutritional problems. Patients are also at risk for problems with speech. Treatment and/or the progression of their disease may cause deterioration in their ability to speak and/or swallow.6 Patients have reported that swallowing disorders negatively affect their quality of life.9 Evaluation by a speech-language/swallowing specialist can help mitigate potential problems, including rehabilitation of speech in patients after total laryngectomy (eg, esophageal speech, tracheoesophageal puncture).14-16
Progress in radiation and surgical techniques has led to a decrease in the local side effects associated with treatment. For example, intensity-modulated radiation therapy maintains tumor control while decreasing radiation dosing to sites not at risk for cancer involvement, and has been shown to decrease dry mouth after treatment.17 Minimally invasive surgical technology (endoscopes, robots, lasers) facilitates complete removal of primary aerodigestive tract tumors, which can be accessed entirely through the mouth under anesthesia.18-22 When applicable, these surgical techniques result in fewer tracheotomies, shorter postsurgical hospital days, and more rapid resumption of swallowing than conventional surgical approaches.
Although clinically significant esophageal constriction or stricture is infrequent after treatment with modern radiation techniques, it nonetheless can occur, particularly in patients with primary tumors of the hypopharynx. When esophageal constriction or stricture is present, esophageal dilation can alleviate related dysphagia. In rare cases of complete esophageal obstruction, an anterograde/retrograde approach may be warranted, and referral to a center with this expertise should be strongly considered.
Feeding Tubes
The NCCN Head and Neck Panel agrees that reactive feeding tube placement is appropriate in selected patients with head and neck cancers.1,13 However, the panel had varying opinions regarding the indications for prophylactic tube placement, although this is commonly performed if high-risk patients will be receiving intense multimodality therapy (eg, concurrent chemoradiation) that is anticipated to cause severe swallowing problems.1,9,11 The NCCN Guidelines provide recommendations for prophylactic tube placement, which should be strongly considered in high-risk patients (eg, those with severe pretreatment weight loss, ongoing dehydration or dysphagia, significant comorbidities, severe aspiration, anticipated posttreatment problems) (see NUTR-A, pages 919 and 920). The NCCN Guidelines do not recommend prophylactic tube placement in lower-risk patients (eg, those without significant pretreatment weight loss, significant aspiration, or severe dysphagia), although these patients must carefully monitor their weight.
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube feeding is useful for patients with swallowing disorders and those who need prolonged nutritional support.23-25 The amount of weight loss is significantly reduced in patients who undergo prophylactic PEG tube placement; however, complications may occur.1,26-28 PEG tubes can lead to infection, aspiration pneumonia, and decreased quality of life.29,30 Although patients prefer PEG over nasogastric tubes, they can become dependent on PEG tubes.26,27,31,32 More-advanced disease, altered fractionation, and concurrent chemoradiation are associated with a greater dependence on PEG tubes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer.32 A recent analysis among patients with swallowing disturbances indicates that mortality rates and pneumonia are similar between the different types of feeding tubes (eg, PEG vs nasogastric tubes); the authors reported that PEG tube feeding seemed to be more effective and as safe as nasogastric tube feeding.23 However, for patients with head and neck cancer, which is the optimal type of feeding tube is unclear.33
Conclusions
These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on nutrition and supportive care for patients with head and neck cancers. Multidisciplinary evaluation is integral to minimizing or decreasing weight loss and speaking and/or swallowing disturbances, and should involve a registered dietitian and a speech-language/swallowing therapist. The NCCN Guidelines provide recommendations for prophylactic feeding tube placement, which should be strongly considered in high-risk patients (eg, those with severe pretreatment weight loss, ongoing dehydration or dysphagia, significant comorbidities, severe aspiration, or anticipated posttreatment problems) (see NUTR-A, pages 919 and 920). The NCCN Guidelines do not recommend prophylactic feeding tube placement in lower-risk patients (eg, those without significant pretreatment weight loss, significant airway obstruction, or severe dysphagia), although these patients must carefully monitor their weight (to view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit the NCCN Web site at NCCN.org).
EDITOR: Kerrin M. Green, MA, Assistant Managing Editor, JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships.
CE AUTHORS: Deborah J. Moonan, RN, BSN, Manager, CE Supporter Outreach, has disclosed the following relationships with commercial interests: AstraZeneca: Stockholder/Former Employee. Kristina M. Gregory, RN, MSN, OCN, Vice President, Clinical Information Operations, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships. James Prazak, RPh, Assistant Director, Continuing Education and Grants, has disclosed the following relationships with commercial interests: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Pension; Pfizer, Inc: Stockholder; United Healthcare Group: Stockholder; Johnson & Johnson: Stockholder. Nicole R. McMillian, MS, Guidelines Coordinator, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Miranda Hughes, PhD, Oncology Scientist/Senior Medical Writer, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
References
- 1.↑
Locher JL, Bonner JA, Carroll WR et al.. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in treatment of head and neck cancer: a comprehensive review and call for evidence-based medicine. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011;35:365–374.
- 2.↑
Machtay M, Moughan J, Farach A et al.. Hypopharyngeal dose is associated with severe late toxicity in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:983–989.
- 3.↑
Nugent B, Parker MJ, McIntyre IA. Nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer. J Hum Nutr Diet 2010;23:277–284.
- 4.↑
Langius JA, van Dijk AM, Doornaert P et al.. More than 10% weight loss in head and neck cancer patients during radiotherapy is independently associated with deterioration in quality of life. Nutr Cancer 2013;65:76–83.
- 5.
Ehrsson YT, Langius-Eklof A, Laurell G. Nutritional surveillance and weight loss in head and neck cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2012;20:757–765.
- 6.↑
Tschiesner U. Preservation of organ function in head and neck cancer. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;11:Doc07.
- 7.
Lee JH, Machtay M, Unger LD et al.. Prophylactic gastrostomy tubes in patients undergoing intensive irradiation for cancer of the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:871–875.
- 8.
Beaver ME, Matheny KE, Roberts DB, Myers JN. Predictors of weight loss during radiation therapy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;125:645–648.
- 9.↑
Langendijk JA, Doornaert P, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM et al.. Impact of late treatment-related toxicity on quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3770–3776.
- 10.↑
Ottosson S, Zackrisson B, Kjellen E et al.. Weight loss in patients with head and neck cancer during and after conventional and accelerated radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2013;52:711–718.
- 11.↑
August DA, Huhmann MB. A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines: nutrition support therapy during adult anticancer treatment and in hematopoietic cell transplantation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009;33:472–500.
- 12.↑
Garg S, Yoo J, Winquist E. Nutritional support for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 2010;18:667–677.
- 13.↑
Rabeneck L, McCullough LB, Wray NP. Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Lancet 1997;349:496–498.
- 14.↑
Xi S. Effectiveness of voice rehabilitation on vocalisation in postlaryngectomy patients: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2010;8:256–258.
- 15.
Singer S, Wollbruck D, Dietz A et al.. Speech rehabilitation during the first year after total laryngectomy. Head Neck, in press.
- 16.↑
Robinson HF. International practice of laryngectomy rehabilitation. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;21:185.
- 17.↑
Nutting CM, Morden JP, Harrington KJ et al.. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:127–136.
- 18.↑
Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Magnuson JS et al.. Transoral robotic surgery: a multicenter study to assess feasibility, safety, and surgical margins. Laryngoscope 2012;122:1701–1707.
- 19.
Arens C. Transoral treatment strategies for head and neck tumors. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;11:Doc05.
- 20.
Dowthwaite SA, Franklin JH, Palma DA et al.. The role of transoral robotic surgery in the management of oropharyngeal cancer: a review of the literature. ISRN Oncol 2012;2012:945162.
- 21.
Adelstein DJ, Ridge JA, Brizel DM et al.. Transoral resection of pharyngeal cancer: summary of a National Cancer Institute Head and Neck Cancer Steering Committee Clinical Trials Planning Meeting, November 6-7, 2011, Arlington, Virginia. Head Neck 2012;34:1681–1703.
- 22.↑
Li RJ, Richmon JD. Transoral endoscopic surgery: new surgical techniques for oropharyngeal cancer. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012;45:823–844.
- 23.↑
Gomes CA Jr, Lustosa SA, Matos D et al.. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD008096.
- 24.
Wiggenraad RG, Flierman L, Goossens A et al.. Prophylactic gastrostomy placement and early tube feeding may limit loss of weight during chemoradiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer, a preliminary study. Clin Otolaryngol 2007;32:384–390.
- 25.↑
Raykher A, Correa L, Russo L et al.. The role of pretreatment percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in facilitating therapy of head and neck cancer and optimizing the body mass index of the obese patient. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009;33:404–410.
- 26.↑
Chen AM, Li BQ, Lau DH et al.. Evaluating the role of prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement prior to definitive chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;78:1026–1032.
- 27.↑
Mekhail TM, Adelstein DJ, Rybicki LA et al.. Enteral nutrition during the treatment of head and neck carcinoma: is a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube preferable to a nasogastric tube? Cancer 2001;91:1785–1790.
- 28.↑
Lawson JD, Gaultney J, Saba N et al.. Percutaneous feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer: rethinking prophylactic placement for patients undergoing chemoradiation. Am J Otolaryngol 2009;30:244–249.
- 29.↑
Cheng SS, Terrell JE, Bradford CR et al.. Variables associated with feeding tube placement in head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:655–661.
- 30.↑
Terrell JE, Ronis DL, Fowler KE et al.. Clinical predictors of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:401–408.
- 31.↑
McLaughlin BT, Gokhale AS, Shuai Y et al.. Management of patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer without prophylactic feeding tubes: the University of Pittsburgh experience. Laryngoscope 2010;120:71–75.
- 32.↑
Garden AS, Kies MS, Morrison WH et al.. Outcomes and patterns of care of patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma treated in the early 21st century. Radiat Oncol 2013;8:21.
- 33.↑
Nugent B, Lewis S, O’Sullivan JM. Enteral feeding methods for nutritional management in patients with head and neck cancers being treated with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD007904.
