Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The optimal timing of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion in head and neck cancer (HNC) remains controversial. While prophylactic PEG placement may prevent treatment-related malnutrition, its true clinical value compared with a reactive strategy is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether prophylactic PEG offers advantages in PEG tube dependence, hospitalization rates, and overall survival among patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for HNC.</p> Methods <p>A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted through September 2025. Two independent reviewers screened and selected studies comparing prophylactic and reactive PEG placement. PEG dependence and survival data were pooled using random-effects meta-analytic models for time-dependent dependency estimates. Hospitalization outcomes were synthesized narratively.</p> Results <p>Nine studies involving 1279 patients met the inclusion criteria. Longitudinal analysis of PEG tube dependence showed that the odds of a tube remaining in situ decreased by 0.5% for each passing month (0.995; <i>p</i> = 0.002). Reactive placement was associated with a nonsignificant 1.0% increase in the odds of dependence compared to the prophylactic group (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.9). Milestone analyses confirmed these findings, with no significant differences in the odds of tube retention at 6 months (OR 1.15; <i>p</i> = 0.72) or 12 months (OR 0.95; <i>p</i> = 0.92). Overall survival showed a nonsignificant 8.8% reduction in median survival time for the reactive group (pooled median survival ratio 0.912; <i>p</i> = 0.6). Pairwise survival odds did not differ significantly at 12 months (OR 1.60; <i>p</i> = 0.19) or 24 months (OR 1.15; <i>p</i> = 0.64). Prophylactic PEG placement resulted in consistently fewer hospitalizations and a more stable nutritional status during treatment.</p> Conclusion <p>No significant differences in survival were observed between prophylactic and reactive PEG strategies; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the methodological limitations of the available data. They do offer meaningful supportive care benefits, including reduced hospitalizations and nutritional decline. These findings support individualized PEG timing based on patient risk factors and anticipated treatment toxicity.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Prophylactic vs. reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis of survival and supportive care outcomes

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月14日

查看全文
  • Abdulsalam Alqutub,
  • Majd Almuqati,
  • Meshal F. Khan,
  • Khalid Mania,
  • Reema S. Althubaiti,
  • Hazem K. Althobaiti,
  • Noura H. Najem,
  • Abdulaziz F. Altowairqi,
  • Shuruq M. Almasoudi,
  • Raghad Y. Shosho,
  • Abdulmajeed M. Alwzyani,
  • Mazin Merdad

摘要

Purpose

The optimal timing of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion in head and neck cancer (HNC) remains controversial. While prophylactic PEG placement may prevent treatment-related malnutrition, its true clinical value compared with a reactive strategy is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether prophylactic PEG offers advantages in PEG tube dependence, hospitalization rates, and overall survival among patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for HNC.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted through September 2025. Two independent reviewers screened and selected studies comparing prophylactic and reactive PEG placement. PEG dependence and survival data were pooled using random-effects meta-analytic models for time-dependent dependency estimates. Hospitalization outcomes were synthesized narratively.

Results

Nine studies involving 1279 patients met the inclusion criteria. Longitudinal analysis of PEG tube dependence showed that the odds of a tube remaining in situ decreased by 0.5% for each passing month (0.995; p = 0.002). Reactive placement was associated with a nonsignificant 1.0% increase in the odds of dependence compared to the prophylactic group (p > 0.9). Milestone analyses confirmed these findings, with no significant differences in the odds of tube retention at 6 months (OR 1.15; p = 0.72) or 12 months (OR 0.95; p = 0.92). Overall survival showed a nonsignificant 8.8% reduction in median survival time for the reactive group (pooled median survival ratio 0.912; p = 0.6). Pairwise survival odds did not differ significantly at 12 months (OR 1.60; p = 0.19) or 24 months (OR 1.15; p = 0.64). Prophylactic PEG placement resulted in consistently fewer hospitalizations and a more stable nutritional status during treatment.

Conclusion

No significant differences in survival were observed between prophylactic and reactive PEG strategies; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the methodological limitations of the available data. They do offer meaningful supportive care benefits, including reduced hospitalizations and nutritional decline. These findings support individualized PEG timing based on patient risk factors and anticipated treatment toxicity.