Neoplasms

Digestive System Diseases

All Conditions

Rare Diseases

Esophageal Neoplasms

Gastrointestinal Neoplasms

Digestive System Neoplasms

Head and Neck Neoplasms

Gastrointestinal Diseases

Esophageal Diseases

Esophageal Cancer

Feeding tube, either gastrostomy (G-) tube or gastrojejunostomy (GJ-) tube (placed by Interventional Radiology) or J-tube (surgically placed)

The experimental arm will forego placement of a feeding tube.

No feeding tube placed

The standard arm will have a feeding tube placed (G-tube or GJ-tube by IR; or surgically placed J-tube)

Placement of a percutaneous feeding tube

Deb Lewis

Mehdi Qiabi, MD MSc

Richard A Malthaner, MD MSc

Rahul Nayak, MD

David Palma, MD PhD

Michael Sanatani, MD

Daniel Breadner, MD MSc

Patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer have difficulty eating, as the food pipe becomes obstructed by the cancer. This may impair the ability for the patient to receive appropriate calorie intake, especially during administration of chemotherapy and radiation therapy given prior to surgical resection.

A strategy is to place a feeding tube directly in the stomach or in the small bowel to have an access to the patient's gastrointestinal tract during administration of chemo radiation therapy. However, these feeding tubes may lead to adverse events, including dislodgement, infection, the tube may be plugged, etc. If these complications were to happen, patients may have their treatment delayed, may have to come to the emergency department or even be admitted. In some cases, patients may need to have a surgery performed to treat the complication. Most centres in Canada have moved away from placement of these feeding tubes due to the high incidence of complications associated with the feeding tubes placement, and due to the high efficacy from the chemoradiation therapy in shrinking the tumour, allowing for the patient to swallow.

In London, the preference from the Medical and Radiation Oncologists was to have these feeding tubes placed to avoid delay in treating the patients. There is therefore significant controversy as to what is the best approach in this patient population. Our goal is to run a feasibility randomized controlled trial studying this question.

Esophageal cancer is highly lethal. In Ontario in 2020, an estimated 900 patients were diagnosed with esophageal cancer, while 860 died from it. In Canada, the figures are 2400 diagnoses and 2260 deaths. The incidence of esophageal cancer in Canada is projected to increase over time, especially in males who are more likely to be obese and to suffer from reflux disease.

Esophageal cancer is the malignancy associated with the highest risk for malnutrition. Before their diagnosis, 80% of all patients with esophageal cancer have over 10-15% unintentional weight loss. Strategies to palliate malnutrition in cancer patients and its consequences on outcomes have been developed. In patient with severe nutritional risk, use of nutritional support for at least 10-14 days has been recommended in a non-surgical, oncology population. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism have recommended preoperatively enteral nutrition for 5-7 days in cancer patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. In addition, dietary counselling and oral nutritional supplement were suggested to prevent weight loss and interruption of radiotherapy on patients undergoing radiation treatments for head/neck or gastrointestinal malignancies. Routine enteral nutrition was not suggested during chemotherapy-only treatments.

The type of supplements administered may have an impact on recovery. It was shown that esophageal cancer patients receiving enriched glutamine, fibers and oligosaccharide perioperative enteral supplementation had a shorter systemic inflammatory response syndrome postoperatively and less surgical stress, which could in turn lead to reduced postoperative immunosuppressive conditions. A recent retrospective study from Taiwan did show a slightly improved 4-year overall survival rate and less mucositis on patients supported by enteral feeding tubes with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and undergoing neoadjuvant therapy.

However, there is still equipoise in the literature and most centers in Canada have moved away from feeding tubes. At LHSC, feeding tubes were historically placed on every patient during their induction treatment. Efforts are being made to spare patients from unnecessary procedure, but patient selection is variable. Standardization of this practice is needed. A recent retrospective study evaluating the effect of surgical enteral access prior to induction treatment did not show nutritional or perioperative benefit. There was no difference in postoperative complication rates and weight loss was similar. In fact, dysphagia is felt to be significantly relieved after a single cycle of chemotherapy. Percutaneous feeding tubes may not be required on all patients during induction therapy for esophageal cancer.

Those feeding tubes are associated with high morbidity. Kidane et al have shown that 39.3% of visits to the ED after an esophagectomy are due to feeding tubes problems (dislodgement, blockage, infection). Of those ED visits for feeding tubes issues, 17% resulted to an admission. Small bowel obstruction is also associated to percutaneous feeding tube placement and selective use has been recommended. Perioperative use of feeding jejunostomy in gastroesophageal cancer has been associate with a complication rate as high as 44%. Given the related-morbidity, guidelines now recommend selective use of feeding tubes on high-risk patients after esophagectomy. When patients undergoing chemotherapy present to the emergency department with fever or infectious signs, data from the Ontario Cancer Registry show that 46% are admitted, increasing healthcare burden. At baseline, patients undergoing chemotherapy are at high risk of presenting to the emergency department or having unplanned visit to the cancer center, this figure going as high as 49% within 4 weeks of initiation of chemotherapy in comparable jurisdictions. Efforts must be made to save an already strained system.

According to the 2020 Surgical Quality Indicator Report Summary from OH-CCO, our center has the worst 30-day unplanned ED visit rate (45%, provincial mean 27%) after esophagectomy in the province of Ontario. Anecdotally, it is felt that most of those cases are related to feeding tubes complications. If these patients present to the ED due to feeding tubes concerns after an esophagectomy, it is likely they would have presented during induction treatment if they had a tube.

Alternative to feeding tubes exist (home IV hydration) which could become a less invasive and more interesting solution.

The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of a larger randomized controlled trial evaluating unplanned visit to the ED or the outpatient clinic in patients eligible for trimodality for esophageal cancer during their induction treatment, randomized into receiving percutaneous enteral access for nutritional support versus not.

Nutritional Support During Induction Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

Nutritional Support in Patient Undergoing Induction Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

The trial will be deemed feasible if 60% or more of eligible patients are recruited, 80% or more of data is collected, and 5% or less patients are lost to follow-up.

Rate of unplanned visits (ED or outpatient clinic) from randomization to esophagectomy

Change in kilograms from baseline measured at each visit

Higher scores for the scales and subscales indicate better quality of life

A high score on the functional scales or the global quality of life scale indicates a high function or high level of global quality of life, conversely a high score on a symptom scale represents a high level (severity or frequency, depending on the specific question) of the symptom in question.

The maximum score of 1 indicates the best health state, by contrast with the scores of individual questions, where higher scores indicate more severe or frequent problems.

Mehdi Qiabi

Associate Scientist

Carcinoma

Carcinoma, Squamous Cell

Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck

Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial

Neoplasms by Histologic Type

Neoplasms, Squamous Cell

All Drugs and Chemicals

Amino Acids

Dacomitinib

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Protein Kinase Inhibitors

Enzyme Inhibitors

Tyrosine

Patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma will be treated with a single dose (45mg) of PF-00299804 via G-Tube on an empty stomach

Tablet, single dose of 45 mg via gastrojejunostomy tube (G-Tube) on an empty stomach

PF-00299804

Lillian Siu, MD

This is a study to assess how much of the investigational drug, PF-00298804, is in the blood stream over a period of time (called pharmacokinetic tests or PK) in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who have a (gastrojejunostomy) feeding tube.

This is a single arm pharmacokinetic assessment study conducted at Princess Margaret Hospital in which eligible patients will be enrolled successively to receive a single dose of PF-00299804 in an open-labelled, unblinded manner. All patients will receive 45 mg of PF-00299804 via Gastrostomy (GT) once only on an empty stomach (i.e. 2 hours before or after oral food intake or GT feeds (food intake of less than 500 calories permitted)) as an inpatient. All patients will be admitted for an overnight inpatient stay (approximately 24 hours) to facilitate pharmacokinetic assessment. There will be no dose reductions or modifications. Blood sampling for pharmacokinetics will occur on day 1 immediately prior to the dose of PF-00299804 (t=0), then at t=30 minutes, t=1 hour, t=2 hours, t=3 hours, t=4 hours, t=6 hours, t=12 hours, t=24 hours, t=48 hours, t=72 hours, t=96 hours, t=144 hours, t=168 hours, t=192 hours, and t=216 hours.

A Study of PF-00299804 When Given Through a Feeding Tube in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Pharmacokinetic Assessment of PF-00299804 in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Following Administration Through a Gastrojejunostomy Feeding Tube

Tmax=4-24 hrs, Cmax = 28.1 ng/ml, AUCtau=47 hr\*ng/ml, t1/2=85.1

Study title	NCT ID	Conditions	Interventions	Eligibility	Organization	Link
Nutritional Support During Induction Therapy for Esophageal Cancer	NCT05314946	Esophageal Canc... Nutrition Aspec...	No feeding tube... Placement of a ...	18 Years -	Lawson Health Research Institute
A Study of PF-00299804 When Given Through a Feeding Tube in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma	NCT01484847	Head and Neck S...	PF-00299804	18 Years -	University Health Network, Toronto

Spots Global Cancer Trial Database for feeding tube

Every month we try and update this database with for feeding tube cancer trials from around the world to help patients and their families find trials that might be right for them.
We offer this 100% free of charge and do not endorse any of the trials listed here, we hope it helps you or a loved one.