Oking status, or gender. Substantial variables for tube placement included age (p = 0.0008) and also the DFH (Docetaxel 5-FU Hydroxyurea) chemotherapy regimen employed in order FIIN-2 limited instances on protocol (p = 0.042). Induction chemotherapy didn’t predict enteral feeding but b.i.d therapy (when on protocol) was a important predictor (p = 0.040). Considerable dosimetric parameters as planned integrated maximum oropharynx dose (p = 0.003), maximum postcricoid esophagus dose (p = 0.043), maximum larynx dose (p = 0.001), mean larynx dose (p = 0.012) maximum constrictor dose (p = 0.002) and imply constrictor dose (p = 0.021). Non-significant parameters integrated the mean oropharynx dose (p = 0.062), and imply postcricoid esophagus dose (p = 0.ten). The cervicothoracic esophagus and parotids had been discovered to have no dosimetric connection to enteral feeding (when it comes to imply dose, max dose, etc.). On multivariate analysis, after controlling for chemotherapy regimen and b.i.d therapy, age remained the single statistically significant factor in predicting will need for enteral feeding (p = 0.003). This didn’t modify when accounting for effects of substantial dosimetric (remedy organizing) parameters (p = 0.003) with or without such as the larynx (p = 0.013) for the 3 patients who had undergone laryngectomy. Among all patients, age and BMI were not correlated (Pearson’s correlation coefficient; R = 0.0233, p = 0.82) and age remained a very important predictor after controlling for BMI (p = 0.003). A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis revealed an optimal age cut-off of 60 as seen in Figure two. For adults aged 60 or greater in comparison with younger adults, the odds ratio for needing enteral feeding was four.188 (95 CI: 1.58711.16; p = 0.0019). Figure 3 depicts FFTP according to this age cutoff.Discussion The usage of CRT in such a PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296037 physiologically intricate area because the head and neck can cause troubles like acute dysphagia and impairment with the swallowing mechanism that could severely limit nutrition and hydration [10,11]. In this setting, sufficient intake can be maintained by enteral feeding pursued either by way of a prophylactic or “reactive” method. Despite the fact that the optimal strategy has but toSachdev et al. Radiation Oncology (2015) ten:Page 4 ofTable 1 Patient, tumor and treatment qualities with univariate analysisVariable Age (years) Median Variety Sex Male Female Efficiency Status (ECOG) Normal Inhibited ( = 1) Body-Mass-Index (BMI), pretreatment Median Smoking None 20 pack years 20 – 40 pack years 40 pack years Tumor Internet site Oral Cavity Oropharynx Hypopharynx Nasopharynx Larynx Unknown principal T stage (AJCC 7th edition) T0-T2 T3-T4 N stage (AJCC 7th edition) N0-N1 N2-N3 Group stage (AJCC 7th edition) III IV (locoregional) Chemotherapy Cisplatin DFH (Docetaxel5-FUHydroxyurea) Cetuximab or other None Induction Yes No 17 (17) 83 (83) 0.999 63 (63) 23 (23) 11 (11) three (3) 0.114 0.042 0.999 18 (18) 72 (72) 0.165 24 (24) 76 (76) 0.184 75 (75) 25 (25) 0.185 four (four) 58 (58) three (3) 9 (9) 13 (13) 13 (13) 
0.094 37 (37) 26 (26) 25 (25) 12 (12) 0.536 28.1 0.152 66 (66) 34 (34) 0.999 83 (83) 17 (17) 0.999 55 30-89 0.0008 Quantity ( ) P ValueTable 1 Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics with univariate evaluation (Continued)BID therapy Yes No Modality Definitive Adjuvant 77 (77) 23 (23) 0.614 21 (21) 79 (79) 0.Abbreviations: AJCC = American Joint Committee on Cancer, ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.be definitively determined, our institutional strategy, s.