S609
Clinical – Head & neck
ESTRO 2026
primary malignancies cannot be ignored. Clinical stage affected the survivals but addinginduction chemotherapy did not. Keywords: Hypopharyngeal cancer, radiotherapy, chemotherapy
Mini-Oral 2953
Predictors of feeding tube use and long-term dependence after curative (chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck cancer Maiken M. Hjelt 1 , Anne I Holm 2 , Jesper G Eriksen 1 1 Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus Universityhospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 2 Dept. of Oncology, Aarhus Universityhospital, Aarhus, Denmark Purpose/Objective: Feeding tubes are commonly used during curative (chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, but predictors of placement and prolonged dependence remain unclear. We examined trends and baseline predictors of tube presence at end of treatment and at 6 months. Material/Methods: A validated, unbiased cohort of 1,522 patients was analyzed using prospectively registered DAHANCA data. Most received moderately accelerated radiotherapy (66–68Gy, 6fx/wk) and with nimorazole weekly cisplatin 40mg/m2 according to national guidelines.Logistic regression identified predictors of tube use at EOT and of prolonged dependency (>6 months among those at risk). Covariates included age, BMI, performance status (PS), comorbidity, tumor site, T- and N-category, p16 status, treatment modality, and baseline dysphagia. Baseline dysphagia was defined as a recorded primary symptom of swallowing difficulties at diagnosis (present vs absent). BMI was categorized as underweight (<18.5 kg/m ² ), normal (18.5–24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9), and obese ( ≥ 30.0). The T- category was categorized as T1–2, T3–4, and unknown primary. The N-category was grouped into N0, N1, and N2–3. Results: Overall, 48% (723/1,522) completed treatment with a tube. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Most tubes were initiated during radiotherapy (primarily week 1–4), while removal peaked in early follow-up (one-third by 2 months). At 6 months, 30% (195/662) remained dependent. Patients with feeding tubes lost more weight during and after treatment (EOT: median − 7.7% (IQR − 10.5 to − 4.4) vs − 3.4% (IQR − 7.1 to +0.2); 6 months: − 9.1% (IQR − 13.6 to − 3.3) vs − 3.6% (IQR − 9.0 to +1.0); both p < 0.001). Median weight returned to baseline only in the non-tube group, whereas most patients with feeding tube never regained their baseline weight within 5 years after treatment (Figure 1).
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online