ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S1247

Clinical - Head & neck

ESTRO 2024

arms at various time points post-RT were as follows- at conclusion: 12 (30.8%) vs. 7 (16.6%), p=0.13; at three months post-RT: 15 (39.4%) vs 16 (41%), p=0.48 and at six months post-RT: 3 (9.1%) vs. 5 (14.7%), p=0.48.

There was no significant difference between the arms at different time points with regards to RT compliance [42 days (IQR:35-47) vs 41 days (IQR:36-44), p=0.79], weight outcomes, use of concurrent chemotherapy, primary site, or RT technique. However, patients who received concurrent chemotherapy had lower weight post-RT at six months compared to those who did not [57 kg (IQR:51.5-65) vs 52.5 (47-60.25), p=0.03]. The median follow-up was 24 months (IQR:13-27). The frequency of any relapse/ recurrence was similar in both arms [16 (41%) prophylactic vs. 14 (33.3%) reactive, p=0.47] with no significant difference in the 2-year overall survival: 69.7% vs. 68.4%, p=0.72 between the arms.

Conclusion:

It is challenging to conduct a randomized trial between prophylactic and reactive feeding tube strategy in HNSCC patients undergoing RT due to poor patient acceptance, and non-compliance. Our analysis did not demonstrate any advantage of one approach over the other.

Keywords: Feeding tube, Randomised, Radical radiotherapy