Publication Type:

Journal Article


Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, Volume 26, Number 3, p.226-232 (2012)



adult, application site infection, arm circumference, article, Carcinoma, clinical effectiveness, comorbidity, comparative study, controlled study, endoscopy, Enteral Nutrition, female, Gastrointestinal, gastrostomy, head and neck cancer, Head and Neck Neoplasms, hemoglobin, human, Humans, Intubation, major clinical study, male, nasogastric tube, nutrition, nutritional assessment, nutritional parameters, Nutritional Status, outcome assessment, patient satisfaction, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, postoperative complication, Prospective Studies, prospective study, quality of life, randomized controlled trial, scoring system, Serum Albumin, Squamous Cell, statistical significance, stomach surgery, stomach tube, Time Factors


To compare the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and nasogastric (NGT) tube administration of enteral nutrition in head and neck cancer patients undergoing curative treatment, the authors conducted a prospective study to compare nutritional outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction. PEG patients sustained significantly less reduction in nutritional parameters, measured at 6 weeks post insertion, as compared with NGT patients. There was also a statistically significant difference between the two groups in patient's quality of life scores and complications. Comparison could not be done at 6 months because all patients were converted to PEG feeding due to the earlier findings. The authors conclude that PEG is more efficacious than NGT as a channel for nutrition in advanced head and neck cancer patients over a short duration. © 2012 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.


cited By (since 1996)1

Cite this Research Publication

A. Sadasivan, Faizal, B., and Kumar, M., “Nasogastric and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube use in advanced head and neck cancer patients: A comparative study”, Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, vol. 26, pp. 226-232, 2012.