The management of dysphagia in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Can invasive tube feeding be avoided?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e15034 Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted standard for locally advanced esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. However the dysphagia frequently associated with this condition may interfere with patient tolerance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Surgical or endoscopic invasive tube feeding (ITF), including stents, is a commonly employed strategy to maintain nutritional support however it can cause significant morbidity in its own right. We sought to determine if an approach of careful dietary counseling and fast-tracked neoadjuvant chemotherapy can obviate the need for ITF. Methods: Pts undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (DCF or ECF Q3 weeks x3 or FLOT Q2weeks x4) for locally advanced (cT3 and/or N+) esophageal or EGJ adenocarcinoma at a single institution from 3/07-9/12 were identified from a prospective database. All received dietary counseling and were closely monitored for signs/ symptoms of malnutrition with serial (baseline/pre-surgery) Body Mass Index (BMI), albumin, dysphagia scores (DS: 0 best - 4 worse), and quality of life (FACT-E). We assessed the response of dysphagia and nutritional status to neoadjuvant treatment and the need for ITF. Data presented as median (Interquartile Range) or median (±SD), paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed ranks test determined significance (*p=0.05). Results: Of 130 patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy 78 had dysphagia scores of 2 or greater, most of whom received DCF (91%). Overall the dysphagia improved in 75/78 (96%) from a DS of 3 (2-4) to 0 (0-1)*. This was associated with an increase in FACT-E QoL scores (117±23 to 140±20)*. Weight (Kg)(70±22:69±24), BMI (24.5±8 to 23.9±7), and Albumin (40±5 to 37±4) were maintained. Only one patient required a stent, and none a jejunostomy, or gastrostomy. Conclusions: Appropriately timed neoadjuvant chemotherapy with a highly effective regimen rapidly restores normal swallowing, maintains nutritional status, and obviates the need for stenting or invasive tube feeding in patients with significant dysphagia from esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".