C. Orphanidou
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
C. Orphanidou has a total of 11 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
A. Bowman
§ Oncology Nutrition (Bowman) and Radiation Oncology (Sheehan), BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC
1 shared publicationA. Esau
|| Clinical Nutrition, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB
1 shared publicationB. Sheehan
§ Oncology Nutrition (Bowman) and Radiation Oncology (Sheehan), BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC
1 shared publicationC. Myers
Patient and Family Support Services, Cancer Care Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB
1 shared publicationJ.R. Wright
† Supportive Care Program (Biggs), Radiation Oncology (Wright), Medical Oncology (Hotte), and Nursing (Lafleur), Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON
1 shared publicationK. Biggs
† Supportive Care Program (Biggs), Radiation Oncology (Wright), Medical Oncology (Hotte), and Nursing (Lafleur), Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 August 2011
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 18 (4) , 191-201
Prophylactic Feeding Tubes for Patients with Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer Undergoing Combined Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy—Systematic Review and Recommendations for Clinical Practice
Goals: This work aimed to determine the benefits and risks of prophylactic feeding tubes for adult patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who receive combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy with curative intent and to make recommendations on the use of prophylactic feeding tubes and the provision of adequate nutrition to this patient population. Methods: A national multidisciplinary panel conducted a systematic review of the evidence and formulated recommendations to guide clinical decision-making. The draft evidence summary and recommendations were distributed to clinicians across Canada for their input. Main Results: No randomized controlled trials have directly addressed this question. Evidence from studies in the target population was limited to seven descriptive studies: two with control groups (one prospective, one retrospective) and five without control groups. Results from ten controlled studies in patients treated with radiotherapy alone were also reviewed. Conclusions: The available evidence was insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of prophylactic feeding tubes in the target patient population or to support an evidence-based practice guideline. After review of the evidence, of guidelines from other groups, and of current clinical practice in Canada, the multidisciplinary panel made consensus-based recommendations regarding comprehensive interdisciplinary clinical care before, during, and after cancer treatment. The recommendations are based on the expert opinion of the panel members and on their understanding of best clinical practice.
- 1 August 2011
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 18 (4) , 191-201
Open AccessProphylactic Feeding Tubes for Patients with Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer Undergoing Combined Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy—Systematic Review and Recommendations for Clinical Practice
Goals: This work aimed to determine the benefits and risks of prophylactic feeding tubes for adult patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who receive combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy with curative intent and to make recommendations on the use of prophylactic feeding tubes and the provision of adequate nutrition to this patient population. Methods: A national multidisciplinary panel conducted a systematic review of the evidence and formulated recommendations to guide clinical decision-making. The draft evidence summary and recommendations were distributed to clinicians across Canada for their input. Main Results: No randomized controlled trials have directly addressed this question. Evidence from studies in the target population was limited to seven descriptive studies: two with control groups (one prospective, one retrospective) and five without control groups. Results from ten controlled studies in patients treated with radiotherapy alone were also reviewed. Conclusions: The available evidence was insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of prophylactic feeding tubes in the target patient population or to support an evidence-based practice guideline. After review of the evidence, of guidelines from other groups, and of current clinical practice in Canada, the multidisciplinary panel made consensus-based recommendations regarding comprehensive interdisciplinary clinical care before, during, and after cancer treatment. The recommendations are based on the expert opinion of the panel members and on their understanding of best clinical practice.