2001
DOI: 10.1177/0148607101025005282
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metastasis of Head and Neck Carcinoma to the Site of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Case Report and Literature Review

Abstract: Metastatic cancer should be considered in patients with head and neck cancer who have unexplained skin changes at the gastrostomy site. Our experience with this case and review of the literature indicate that, in patients with head and neck cancer, "pull" procedures for placement of gastrostomy tubes may induce metastasis by direct implantation of tumor cells because of contact between the gastrostomy tube and tumor cells. Methods of tube insertion that avoid such contact are preferred.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0
5

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
33
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Less common complications include aspiration [22], bleeding [23][24][25][26], buried bumper syndrome [21], peritonitis [5], accidental removal of the catheter [27], colo-gastrocutaneus fistula [28], gastric volvulus [29], trans-or intrahepatic PEG placement [30], tumor seeding [31,32] and gastric outlet obstruction [33]. The PEG catheter is also a constant, visible reminder of disease, which might influence the patient's health-related quality of life [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Less common complications include aspiration [22], bleeding [23][24][25][26], buried bumper syndrome [21], peritonitis [5], accidental removal of the catheter [27], colo-gastrocutaneus fistula [28], gastric volvulus [29], trans-or intrahepatic PEG placement [30], tumor seeding [31,32] and gastric outlet obstruction [33]. The PEG catheter is also a constant, visible reminder of disease, which might influence the patient's health-related quality of life [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patient age, whether old or young age, was not a risk factor for stomal metastases (mean age 59.0 ± 10.0 yr, N = 43, not reported in (24); age distribution similar for (4) Longer duration for implanted cancerous cell(s) to multiply and become grossly evident at stoma * References include: (2,7,12,15,20,(24)(25)(26)(27)30,(33)(34)(35)40,41,43). * * Includes 27 receiving PEG before any cancer therapy, and 7 undergoing PEG after known local recurrence following ablative cancer therapy (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy).…”
Section: Rejected Risk Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bien que le taux de complications mineures était similaire dans tous les bras, le taux des complications graves et de décès était de 0, 10 et 11 %, respectivement, favorisant considérablement la gastrostomie par voie endoscopique (PEG). Des cas très rares ont été reportés dans la littérature de métas-tases au niveau du site de la gastrostomie [38]. Aussi bien les études prospectives et rétrospectives indiquent que la PEG a potentiellement des avantages par rapport à l'alimentation par sonde nasogastrique en assurant une mobilité plus facile des patients, une meilleure qualité de vie et en permettant l'utilisation des aliments de haute valeur énergé-tique [39][40][41][42].…”
Section: La Supplémentation Par Voie Oraleunclassified