Implantable Port Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Cancer Patients Requiring Chemotherapy: An RCT-Based Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Journal of Cancer Pub Date : 2025-01-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.7150/jca.103631
Juan Qiu, Shanshan Huang, Pei Wen, Yingxin Jiang, Zan Luo, Wenxiong Zhang, Jianyun Wen
{"title":"Implantable Port Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Cancer Patients Requiring Chemotherapy: An RCT-Based Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Juan Qiu, Shanshan Huang, Pei Wen, Yingxin Jiang, Zan Luo, Wenxiong Zhang, Jianyun Wen","doi":"10.7150/jca.103631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Implantable port catheters (IPCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used venous access methods for chemotherapy in cancer patients. However, the question of which is superior remains controversial. This meta-analysis, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematically compares the safety, cost, and impact on quality of life between these two methods. <b>Methods:</b> Eligible RCTs comparing IPC and PICC were identified through searches in seven databases. Complications were the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included cost, impact on chemotherapy, and quality of life assessments. <b>Results:</b> Six studies based on five RCTs, including a total of 1,127 patients, were analyzed. Patient data indicated that the PICC group experienced a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, and local reactions. Conversely, the IPC group had a higher incidence of pocket infection/exit-site infection without septicemia and pain. When considering catheter days, the PICC group again showed a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, edema, and local reactions. Complication-free survival was better in the IPC group. Although the impact on chemotherapy tended to favor the IPC group, this difference was not statistically significant. The total cost was higher in the IPC group, while the cost per catheter day was similar between the two groups. Quality of life assessments (using EORTC QLQ-C30) revealed similar global health status between the two groups during the post-implantation, mid-treatment, and end-treatment periods. However, the IPC group experienced a smaller decline in global health status post-implantation compared to the PICC group. <b>Conclusions:</b> Compared to PICC, IPC appears to be a safer and more comfortable intravenous catheterization option for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":15183,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer","volume":"16 4","pages":"1127-1136"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.103631","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implantable port catheters (IPCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used venous access methods for chemotherapy in cancer patients. However, the question of which is superior remains controversial. This meta-analysis, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematically compares the safety, cost, and impact on quality of life between these two methods. Methods: Eligible RCTs comparing IPC and PICC were identified through searches in seven databases. Complications were the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included cost, impact on chemotherapy, and quality of life assessments. Results: Six studies based on five RCTs, including a total of 1,127 patients, were analyzed. Patient data indicated that the PICC group experienced a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, and local reactions. Conversely, the IPC group had a higher incidence of pocket infection/exit-site infection without septicemia and pain. When considering catheter days, the PICC group again showed a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, edema, and local reactions. Complication-free survival was better in the IPC group. Although the impact on chemotherapy tended to favor the IPC group, this difference was not statistically significant. The total cost was higher in the IPC group, while the cost per catheter day was similar between the two groups. Quality of life assessments (using EORTC QLQ-C30) revealed similar global health status between the two groups during the post-implantation, mid-treatment, and end-treatment periods. However, the IPC group experienced a smaller decline in global health status post-implantation compared to the PICC group. Conclusions: Compared to PICC, IPC appears to be a safer and more comfortable intravenous catheterization option for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer
Journal of Cancer ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
333
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal with broad scope covering all areas of cancer research, especially novel concepts, new methods, new regimens, new therapeutic agents, and alternative approaches for early detection and intervention of cancer. The Journal is supported by an international editorial board consisting of a distinguished team of cancer researchers. Journal of Cancer aims at rapid publication of high quality results in cancer research while maintaining rigorous peer-review process.
期刊最新文献
ADAM10 is a key player in the diagnosis, prognosis and metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Addition of Bevacizumab to Vinorelbine-Platinum combination is efficacious in Heavily Pretreated HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer. KLK7 Involvement in Thyroid Papillary Carcinoma Cell Migration and Invasion by EMT via MAPK/ERK Pathways. NUPR1 contributes to endocrine therapy resistance by modulating BIRC5 expression and inducing luminal B-ERBB2+ subtype-like characteristics in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer cells. The Impact of MET Variants in Oral Cancer Progression and Clinicopathological Characteristics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1