The effects of swallowing disorders, dysgeusia, oral mucositis and xerostomia on nutritional status, oral intake and weight loss in head and neck cancer patients: A systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 105-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Bressan ◽  
Simone Stevanin ◽  
Monica Bianchi ◽  
Giuseppe Aleo ◽  
Annamaria Bagnasco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Oral Intake ◽  
Swallowing Disorders

Evaluation and Management of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Head and Neck Cancer

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 400-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joy E. Gaziano
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Oral Intake ◽  
Swallowing Disorders ◽  
Accurate Identification

Background Dysphagia is a common symptom of head and neck cancer or sequelae of its management. Swallowing disorders related to head and neck cancer are often predictable, depending on the structures or treatment modality involved. Dysphagia can profoundly affect posttreatment recovery as it may contribute to aspiration pneumonia, dehydration, malnutrition, poor wound healing, and reduced tolerance to medical treatments. Methods The author reviewed the normal anatomy and physiology of swallowing and contrasted it with the commonly identified swallowing deficits related to head and neck cancer management. Evaluation methods and treatment strategies that can be used to successfully manage the physical and psychosocial effects of dysphagia are also reviewed. Results Evaluation of dysphagia by the speech pathologist can be achieved with instrumental and non-instrumental methods. Once accurate identification of the deficits is completed, a range of treatment strategies can be applied that may return patients to safe oral intake, improve nutritional status, and enhance quality of life. Conclusions To improve safety of oral intake, normalize nutritional status, reduce complications of cancer treatment and enhance quality of life, accurate identification of swallowing disorders and efficient management of dysphagia symptoms must be achieved in an interdisciplinary team environment.

scholarly journals Biomarkers in the assessment of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 2969-2988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Gabriela Costa Normando ◽  
Camila Lopes Rocha ◽  
Isabela Porto de Toledo ◽  
Paulo Tadeu de Souza Figueiredo ◽  
Paula Elaine Diniz dos Reis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Meta Analysis

The effectiveness of mouthwashes in alleviating radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masaru Konishi ◽  
Rinus Gerardus Verdonschot ◽  
Kiichi Shimabukuro ◽  
Takashi Nakamoto ◽  
Minoru Fujita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Radiation Induced

scholarly journals Weight loss in head and neck cancer patients little noticed in general practice

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline van Wayenburg ◽  
Ellen Rasmussen-Conrad ◽  
Manon van den Berg ◽  
Matthias Merkx ◽  
Wija van Staveren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Disease Course ◽  
Referral Letters

INTRODUCTION: In head and neck cancer patients, weight loss increases morbidity and mortality, and decreases treatment tolerance and quality of life. Early nutritional intervention has beneficial effects on these factors. AIM: We observed patients’ weight courses after specialists’ care and surveyed nutrition-related documentation by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: From a Head and Neck Oncology Centre (HNOC) study, 68 patients were asked to participate in an extended general practice cohort. Twenty-six patients participated in the prospective three-monthly weight measurements during the year after HNOC care. We extracted nutritional information contained in referral letters (n=24) and medical records from the year before referral (n=45) and after HNOC care (n=26). An impaired nutritional status was assigned to weight loss =10% within six months or Body Mass Index (BMI) <18.5 kg/m2 and ‘at risk’ to weight loss =5% but <10% within six months. RESULTS: Three (12%) participants were nutritionally impaired and two (8%) were deemed ‘at risk’. Although GPs suspected a (pre-) malignancy in 11 cases (46%), only two (8%) documented weight loss or BMI and four (17%) nutrition-related complaints in their referral letters. Medical records more often contained information on nutrition-related complaints and tube feeding later in the disease course, as opposed to concern over weight loss or BMI. DISCUSSION: Therefore, we call for nutritional management in general practice, by urging practitioners to assess patients’ nutritional status throughout the disease course and intervene if necessary. The passing on of related information in case of referral promotes continuity of care. KEYWORDS: Humans; follow-up studies; weight loss; cachexia; family practice; head and neck neoplasms

Comparison of patient performance between PEG/no PEG placement in head and neck cancer patients during chemoradiotherapy treatment.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6091-6091
Author(s):  
Robin Metcalfe-Klaw ◽  
Hasan Husaini ◽  
Cathy L Lazarus ◽  
Louis Benjamin Harrison ◽  
Bruce Culliney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Oral Intake ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Significant Treatment ◽  
Endoscopic Gastrostomy ◽  
Distress Level

6091 Background: Many head and neck cancer patients suffer from side effects of chemoradiotherapy that can result in reduced oral intake, and weight loss. To prevent this malnutrition they often undergo preventative percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. We aim to determine whether PEG placement is necessary for successful patient performace during treatment. Methods: We compared 2 groups: patients that underwent PEG (Gp-1=P) (n=20), and those that did not undergo PEG (GP-2=NP) (n=47). All patients were treated with chemoradiotherapy. All were assessed at baseline (BL), and wk 5 of tx. WHO variables including weight loss, mucositis, dysphagia, and odynophagia ratings, along with patient-rated modified “distress thermometers”, were analyzed. Results: Patients with no PEGs had higher weights at BL (NP=193 vs P= 171, p=0.073) and at wk 5 (NP=179 vs P= 160, p=0.056). Weight loss in these groups were 8.09 % - P (p=0.000), 8.25% - NP (p=0.000) respectively from BL - wk 5. The median distress level of each group was 0-P and 1-NP at BL (p=0.302) and 6-P and 3-NP at wk 5 (p=0.086). 27 patients had a distress level of > = 4 at wk 5. Of these 27, 12 were PEG’d and 15 were not (p=0.008). 86 % of patients in the PEG group had distress >=4 and 44 % in the NP group had distress levels >=4. Patients that underwent PEG had slightly higher odds (NS) of associating their distress to nausea, fatigue and/or eating than patients that were not PEG’d. The wk 5 WHO toxicity scale assessment showed 15 PEG’d patients had Grade 1 (n=5), Grade 2 (n=9) & Grade 3 (n=1) dysphagia and 28 NP patients had Grade 1 (n=23) & Grade 2 (n=5) dysphagia (CHI square =11.66, p=0.009). Conclusions: Patients that underwent PEG placement before or during treatment performed worse in every assessment (weight loss, distress thermometer & toxicity scale) as compared to the no PEG group. Patients who have a normal or above average BMI are candidates to be monitored for PEG placement. However, both groups examined were able to complete treatment without significant treatment breaks. Close multidisciplinary monitoring and more intensive supportive care are needed when determining need for PEG placement during treatment.

scholarly journals Incidence of Oral Mucositis in Patients Undergoing Head and Neck Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Raquel Pacheco ◽  
Maria Alzira Cavacas ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Pedro Oliveira ◽  
Carlos Zagalo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Incidence Rates

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the literature about the incidence of oral mucositis and its degrees (mild, moderate, and severe), in patients undergoing head and neck cancer treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery). Addressing this issue is important since oral mucositis has a negative impact on oral health and significantly deteriorates the quality of life. Therefore, a multidisciplinary team, including dentists, should be involved in the treatment. The overall oral mucositis incidence was 89.4%. The global incidence for mild, moderate, and severe degrees were 16.8%, 34.5%, and 26.4%, respectively. The high incidence rates reported in this review point out the need for greater care in terms of the oral health of these patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document