4.4 Article

Nutritional interventions in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy: Current practice at the Dutch Head and Neck Oncology centres

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13518

关键词

chemoradiotherapy; diet therapy; enteral nutrition; gastrostomy; head and neck neoplasms; nutritional intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed variations in nutritional interventions during chemoradiotherapy among Dutch Head and Neck Oncology centres, revealing substantial differences in dietetic practices, especially in the use of gastrostomy for tube feeding. There is a need for concise dietetic guidelines to standardize practices among different centres.
Objective To assess variations in nutritional interventions during chemoradiotherapy (CRT) among the Dutch Head and Neck Oncology centres (HNOCs). Methods An online questionnaire about nutritional interventions and dietetic practices was sent to 14 oncology dietitians of the HNOCs. Results The response rate was 93%. The number of scheduled dietetic consultations varied from two to seven during CRT. Most centres (77%) reported using a gastrostomy for tube feeding in the majority of patients. Gastrostomies were placed prophylactically upon indication (39%) or in all patients (15%), reactive (15%), or both (31%). For calculating energy requirements, 54% of the dietitians used the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization and United Nations University (FAO/WHO/UNU) formula and 77% uses 1.2-1.5 g/kg body weight for calculating protein requirements. Almost half of the centres (46%) reported to remove the gastrostomy between 8 and 12 weeks after CR. Most centres (92%) reported to end dietary treatment within 6 months after CRT. Conclusion This study shows substantial variation in dietetic practice, especially in the use of a gastrostomy for tube feeding, between the HNOCs. There is a need for concise dietetic guidelines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据