Prospective evaluation of malignant cell seeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with oropharyngeal/esophageal cancers

Background and study aims: Insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is standard care for many patients with oropharyngeal (ENT) and esophageal malignancies in order to ensure enteral feeding. The current pull-through insertion technique involves direct contact with the tumor and case reports have demonstrated the presence of metastases at insertion sites. The aim of the current study was to prospectively evaluate the risk of malignant cell seeding and the development of abdominal wall metastases after PEG placement.

Patients and methods: A total of 50 consecutive patients with ENT/esophageal tumors were included. After PEG placement (40 pull-through technique, 10 direct insertion), brush cytology was taken from the PEG tubing and the transcutaneous incision site. A second cytological assessment was performed after a follow-up period of 3 – 6 months.

Results: In total, 26 patients with ENT cancer, 13 with esophageal cancer, and one with esophageal infiltration of lung cancer underwent pull-through PEG placement with no immediate complications. Cytology following brushing of tubing and incision sites demonstrated malignant cells in 9 /40 cases (22.5 %). Correlation analyses revealed a higher rate of malignant seeding in older patients and in those with higher tumor stages. At follow-up, cytology was undertaken in 32 /40 patients who had undergone pull-through PEG placement. Malignant cells were present in three on cytology, resulting in a metastatic seeding rate of 9.4 %.

Conclusion: This study showed that malignant cells were present in 22.5 % of patients immediately after pull-through PEG placement; local metastases were verified at follow-up in 9.4 %, all of which were from esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. This risk is particularly high in the older age group and in patients with higher tumor stages. Therefore, pull-through PEG placement should be avoided in these patients and direct access PEG favored instead.

• References

• 1 Löser C, Aschl G, Hébuterne X et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition – percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 2005; 24: 848-861
• 2 Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant Jr RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15: 872-875
• 3 Wiggenraad RG, Flierman L, Goossens A et al. Prophylactic gastrostomy placement and early tube feeding may limit loss of weight during chemoradiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer, a preliminary study. Clin Otolaryngol 2007; 32: 384-390
• 4 Byrne KR, Fang JC. Endoscopic placement of enteral feeding catheters. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2006; 22: 546-550
• 5 Fresenius Kabi. Freka product information. Available from: http://www.fresenius-kabi.com/2506.htm
• 6 Topalidis T, Atay Z. Standardized procedure in extragenital cytology. Standardization of cytopathologic diagnosis. Pathologe 1998; 19: 461-463
• 7 Cruz I, Mamel JJ, Brady PG et al. Incidence of abdominal wall metastasis complicating PEG tube placement in untreated head and neck cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 708-711
• 8 Douglas JG, Koh W, Laramore GE. Metastasis to a percutaneous gastrostomy site from head and neck cancer: radiobiologic considerations. Head Neck 2000; 22: 826-830
• 9 Lee DS, Mohit-Tabatabai MA, Rush Jr BF et al. Stomal seeding of head and neck cancer by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Ann Surg Oncol 1995; 2: 170-173
• 10 Brown MC. Cancer metastasis at percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy stomata is related to the hematogenous or lymphatic spread of circulating tumor cells. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 3288-3291
• 11 Strodel WE, Kenady DE. Stomal seeding of head and neck cancer by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. Ann Surg Oncol 1995; 2: 462-463
• 12 Strodel WE, Kenady DE, Zweng TN. Avoiding stoma seeding in head and neck cancer patients. Surg Endosc 1995; 9: 1142-1143
• 13 Cappell MS. Risk factors and risk reduction of malignant seeding of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy track from pharyngoesophageal malignancy: a review of all 44 known reported cases. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1307-1311
• 14 Pickhardt PJ, Rohrmann Jr CA, Cossentino MJ. Stomal metastases complicating percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: CT findings and the argument for radiologic tube placement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 735-739
• 15 Dormann AJ, Glosemeyer R, Leistner U et al. Modified percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) with gastropexy – early experience with a new introducer technique. Z Gastroenterol 2000; 38: 933-938
• 16 Wejda BU, Deppe H, Huchzermeyer H et al. PEG placement in patients with ascites: a new approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 178-180
• 17 Van Dyck E, Macken EJ, Roth B et al. Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 23