Skip to content

feeding tube placement directly in stomach vs through nose in patients having advanced cancer of mouth and food pipe with difficulty in swallowing

Comparative evaluation of Nasoenteric feeding and percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy(PRG) for enteric support in patients with moderate and severe dysphagia due to neoplasms of oropharynx or esophagus: A Randomised Controlled trial.

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Phase 2Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2017/05/008710
Enrollment
50
Registered
2017-05-31
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: null- Patients presenting with dysphagia in patients of Head and neck cancer and Carcinoma oesophagus

Interventions

Intervention1: Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy: Gastric puncture will be performed with a 17-gauge puncture needle preloaded with an anchor (Cope gastrointestinal suture anchor sets
Cook). An intragastric position is confirmed by aspiration of air into a syringe and/or injection of contrast, outlining gastric rugal folds. The anchor is then deployed by passing a guidewire through

Sponsors

All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: a)- Patients diagnosed to have carcinoma esophagus and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma presenting with significant dysphagia requiring nutritional supplementation. b)- treatment naïve patients having performance status less than or equal to ECOG 2 c)- Patients between age of 18 to 75 years

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: a)- Patients fit for upfront surgery not requiring adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. b)- Refusal to give consent c)- performance status >ECOG 2 at presentation d)- Patients who have received treatment previously. e)- Patients with uncorrectable coagulopathy f)- Patients with absolute dysphagia with multiple failed attempts of NG tube insertion.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Patient discomfort and Quality of Life using a)-EORTC QLQ OES-18 score pre and post treatment. b)- Comfort level with the mode of nutrition (scale 1-10) c)- Number of hospital visits/readmissions attributable to gastrostomy/NG tube d)- Pain/discomfort level (NPS 1-10) e)- Would you (patient) choose the same mode of feeding if given an option again? Timepoint: 3 months and 6 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Effect on nutritional parameters: a)- Maximum weight loss/gain during treatment (chemoradiotherapy) b)- BMI with lean body mass c)- Mid upper arm circumference (MUAC) d)- Triceps skinfold thickness (TST) e)- Treatment algorithm delay due to nutritional insufficiency f)- Treatment protocol change due to nutritional insufficiency Timepoint: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months post procedure;Success and complication of Procedure Procedural success rate of both gastrostomy and NG tube insertion will be documented. Dropouts will be treated based on intention to treat analysis. Procedural Complications to be assessed: a)- Peristomal leakage, peristomal bleeding/hematoma, tube blockage or dislodgement, peritonitis-RIG b)- Inadvertent removal, sinusitis, mucosal erosions in NG feeding Timepoint: 1, 3 and 6 months

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Mukesh Kumar

BRAIRCH, AIIMS, New Delhi

mukeshyadav11@gmail.com9872889049

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026