Fulvio Pinelli, Francesco Barbani, Barbara Defilippo, Angela Fundarò, Alessandra Nella, Valentina Selmi, Stefano Romagnoli, Gianluca Villa
{"title":"接受新辅助化疗的乳腺癌妇女的生活质量:PICC 和 PICC 端口的比较。","authors":"Fulvio Pinelli, Francesco Barbani, Barbara Defilippo, Angela Fundarò, Alessandra Nella, Valentina Selmi, Stefano Romagnoli, Gianluca Villa","doi":"10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.</p>","PeriodicalId":56083,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port.\",\"authors\":\"Fulvio Pinelli, Francesco Barbani, Barbara Defilippo, Angela Fundarò, Alessandra Nella, Valentina Selmi, Stefano Romagnoli, Gianluca Villa\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breast Cancer\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341727/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breast Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port.
Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.
Methods: We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.
Results: Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.
Conclusions: In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.
期刊介绍:
Breast Cancer, the official journal of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society, publishes articles that contribute to progress in the field, in basic or translational research and also in clinical research, seeking to develop a new focus and new perspectives for all who are concerned with breast cancer. The journal welcomes all original articles describing clinical and epidemiological studies and laboratory investigations regarding breast cancer and related diseases. The journal will consider five types of articles: editorials, review articles, original articles, case reports, and rapid communications. Although editorials and review articles will principally be solicited by the editors, they can also be submitted for peer review, as in the case of original articles. The journal provides the best of up-to-date information on breast cancer, presenting readers with high-impact, original work focusing on pivotal issues.