Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 5/2015

01-05-2015 | Original Article

Increased rates of local complication of central venous catheters in the targeted anticancer therapy era: a 2-year retrospective analysis

Authors: R. Berardi, S. Rinaldi, D. Santini, B. Vincenzi, R. Giampieri, E. Maccaroni, F. Marcucci, M. Francoletti, A. Onofri, A. Lucarelli, C. Pierantoni, G. Tonini, S. Cascinu

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Totally implantable central venous accesses (port-a-cath) are often used for chemotherapy administration or prolonged intravenous infusions in cancer patients. Local and systemic complications may occur both during and after placement of port-a-cath despite the well-established techniques for its placement and care. Out of other catheter-related local complications, thrombosis and infections represent the most common. Complications related to central venous catheter may be associated with infusion of both conventional chemotherapy and molecularly targeted therapy. Incidence and nature of complications of central venous catheter have been well established for long-term chemotherapy. However, very sparse data exists on the incidence of complications of molecularly targeted therapies administered through a central venous catheter. Hence, we decided to retrospectively analyze the local complications of a central venous catheter in patients receiving molecularly targeted therapy and conventional chemotherapy, respectively.

Methods

Over a 2-year period, 459 devices were placed in two academic Italian institutions. Patients’ characteristics, catheter-related complications, and their relationship with targeted therapy administration were retrospectively assessed.

Results

Catheter-related complications occurred in 30 out of the 459 analyzed cancer patients (7 %). Local complications occurred in 12 (40 %) and 18 (60 %) patients receiving standard chemotherapy and biological drugs, respectively. Eighteen (72 %) out of 25 patients developing biological complications (BC) were receiving biological drugs. Infusion of a biological drug through a central venous catheter has been shown to increase the risk of central venous catheter complications (p = 0.02). No difference between the incidence of complication between anti-angiogenic and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents was observed in our study despite the statistically significant early development of port-a-cath complication in the anti-EGFR group. Treatment with a biological drug and the stage of disease, in univariate analysis, had independent effect on the duration for development of catheter-related complications.

Conclusions

Molecularly targeted therapy may influence the occurrence of BCs, i.e., infection and dehiscence. Onset of BCs occurred earlier in patients receiving biological drugs (more frequently with bevacizumab than with anti-EGFR therapy) than those undergoing traditional chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to ascertain the findings of our study and to elucidate the reason for the higher incidence of catheter-related complications.
Literature
1.
Biffi R, Corrado F, De Braud F et al (1997) Long term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: experience on 178 cases using a single type of device. Eur J Cancer 33:1190–1194CrossRefPubMed
2.
Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F et al (2001) A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 92:1204–1212CrossRefPubMed
3.
Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:180–184CrossRefPubMed
4.
Funaki B, Szymski GX, Hackworth CA et al (1997) Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-term central venous access. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:1431–1434CrossRefPubMed
5.
Poorter RL, Lauw FN, Bemelman WA, Bakker PJ, Taat CW, Veenhof CH (1996) Complications of an implantable venous access device (Port-a-Cath) during intermittent continuous infusion of chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 32A(13):2262–2266CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W et al (2004) Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2335–2342CrossRefPubMed
7.
Erinjeri JP, Fong AJ, Kemeny NE et al (2011) Timing of administration of bevacizumab chemotherapy affects wound healing after chest wall port placement. Cancer 117:1296–1301CrossRefPubMed
8.
Los M, Roodhart JM, Voest EE (2007) Target practice: lessons from phase III trials with bevacizumab and vatalanib in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Oncologist 12:443–450CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zhang H, Berezov A, Wang Q, Zhang G, Drebin J, Murali R, Greene MI (2007) ErbB receptors: from oncogenes to targeted cancer therapies. J Clin Invest 117:2051–2058CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
10.
Yildizeli B, Laçin T, Batirel HF et al (2004) Complications and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports. J Vasc Access 5:174–178PubMed
11.
Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G et al (2001) Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg 136:1050–1053CrossRefPubMed
12.
Tsutsumi S, Fukasawa T, Fujii T et al (2012) Central venous port system-related complications in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 59:1079–1080PubMed
13.
Marcy PY, Magné N, Castadot P et al (2007) Is radiologic placement of arm port mandatory in oncology patients? An analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer 110:2331–2338CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS et al (2009) Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 15:1709–1714
15.
Vescia S, Baumgärtner AK, Jacobs VR, Kiechle-Bahat M et al (2008) Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 19:9–15CrossRefPubMed
16.
Chang YF, Lo AC, Tsai CH et al (2013) Higher complication risk of totally implantable venous access port systems in patients with advanced cancer—a single institution retrospective analysis. Palliat Med 27:185–191CrossRefPubMed
17.
Touré A, Vanhems P, Lombard-Bohas C et al (2012) Totally implantable central venous access port infections in patients with digestive cancer: incidence and risk factors. Am J Infect Control 40:935–939CrossRefPubMed
18.
Pinto C, Barone CA, Girolomoni G et al (2011) Management of skin toxicity associated with cetuximab treatment in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Oncologist 16:228–238CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
19.
Segaert S, van Cutsem E (2005) Clinical signs, pathophysiology and management of skin toxicity during therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Ann Oncol 16:1425–1433CrossRefPubMed
20.
Dean NR, Sweeny L, Harari PM et al (2011) Wound healing following combined radiation and cetuximab therapy in head and neck cancer patients. J Wound Care 20:166–170CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
21.
Saif MW, Mehra R (2006) Incidence and management of bevacizumab-related toxicities in colorectal cancer. Expert Opin Drug Saf 5:553–566CrossRefPubMed
22.
Nissen NN, Polverini PJ, Koch AE et al (1998) Vascular endothelial growth factor mediates angiogenic activity during the proliferative phase of wound healing. Am J Pathol 152:1445–1452PubMedCentralPubMed
23.
Scappaticci FA, Fehrenbacher L, Cartwright T et al (2005) Surgical wound healing complications in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. J Surg Oncol 91:173–180CrossRefPubMed
24.
Erinjeri JP, Fong AJ, Kemeny NE et al (2002) Timing of administration of bevacizumab chemotherapy affects wound healing after chest wall port placement. Cancer 94:245–251CrossRef
25.
Grenader T, Goldberg A, Verstandig A et al (2010) Indwelling central venous access port insertion during bevacizumab-based therapy. Anticancer Drugs 21:704–707CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zawacki WJ, Walker TG, DeVasher E et al (2009) Wound dehiscence or failure to heal following venous access port placement in patients receiving bevacizumab therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:624–627CrossRefPubMed
27.
Beckers MM, Ruven HJ, Seldenrijk CA, Prins MH, Biesma DH (2010) Risk of thrombosis and infections of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports in patients treated for cancer. Thromb Res 125:318–321CrossRefPubMed
28.
Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Mauri S, Goldhirsch A, Nolè F, Andreoni B (1998) Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol 9:767–773CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Increased rates of local complication of central venous catheters in the targeted anticancer therapy era: a 2-year retrospective analysis
Authors
R. Berardi
S. Rinaldi
D. Santini
B. Vincenzi
R. Giampieri
E. Maccaroni
F. Marcucci
M. Francoletti
A. Onofri
A. Lucarelli
C. Pierantoni
G. Tonini
S. Cascinu
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2466-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Supportive Care in Cancer 5/2015 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Comparison of antibiotic prophylaxis with cotrimoxazole/colistin (COT/COL) versus ciprofloxacin (CIP) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Original Article

General health, symptom occurrence, and self-efficacy in adult survivors after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a cross-sectional comparison between hospital care and home care

Original Article

Long-term efficacy and tolerability of intranasal fentanyl in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain

Original Article

Emotional adjustment over 1 year post-diagnosis in patients with cancer: understanding and predicting adjustment trajectories

Original Article

Prevalence, predictors, and correlates of supportive care needs among women 3–5 years after a diagnosis of endometrial cancer

Original Article

Parental experiences of childhood cancer treatment in Kenya
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits