Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:43:37.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Head and neck cancer metastasis to the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube site: a report of two cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2010

Matthew Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Aruna Turaka*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Steven J. Feigenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
*
Correspondence to: Aruna Turaka, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion is used as an alternative to surgical gastrostomy in patients with head and neck cancers for nutritional support.

Methods: We report two cases of head and neck cancer with metastasis to the surgical PEG tube site. The clinical and treatment-related details are discussed.

Conclusions: Metastasis to PEG tube site is a rare occurrence.

Type
Case Report
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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(6): 13071311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maccabee, D, Sheppard, BC. Prevention of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy stoma metastases in patients with active oropharyngeal malignancy. Surg Endosc 2003; 17(10):1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruz, I et al. Incidence of abdominal wall metastasis complicating PEG tube placement in untreated head and neck cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62(5): 708711; quiz 752, 753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, JG, Koh, W, Laramore, GE. Metastasis to a percutaneous gastrostomy site from head and neck cancer: radiobiologic considerations. Head Neck 2000; 22(8): 826830.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turaka, A et al. The use of a conventional Low Neck Field (LNF) and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT): no clinical detriment of IMRT to an anterior LNF during the treatment of head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010:6.Google Scholar
Purandare, NC et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site metastases in head and neck cancer: use of FDG PET-CT. Diagn Interv Radiol 2008; 14(2): 8893.Google ScholarPubMed
Pickhardt, PJ, Rohrmann, CA Jr, Cossentino, MJ. Stomal metastases complicating percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: CT findings and the argument for radiologic tube placement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179(3): 735739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strodel, WE, Kenady, DE. Stomal seeding of head and neck cancer by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. Ann Surg Oncol 1995; 2(5): 462463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosseini, M, Lee, JG. Metastatic esophageal cancer leading to gastric perforation after repeat PEG placement. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94(9): 25562558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ananth, S, Amin, M. Implantation of oral squamous cell carcinoma at the site of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a case report. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 40(2): 125130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed