Top

Published in:

01-10-2018 | Preclinical study

Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review

Authors: Andrew Robinson, Osama Souied, A. Brianne Bota, Nathalie Levasseur, Carol Stober, John Hilton, Dalia Kamel, Brian Hutton, Lisa Vandermeer, Sasha Mazzarello, Anil A. Joy, Dean Fergusson, Sheryl McDiarmid, Mathew McInnes, Risa Shorr, Mark Clemons

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2018

Abstract

Importance

Systemic chemotherapy can be administered either through a peripheral vein (IV), or centrally through peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), totally implanted vascular access devices (PORTs) or tunnelled cuffed catheters. Despite the widespread use of systemic chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, the optimal choice of vascular access is unknown.

Objective

This systematic review evaluated complication rates and patient satisfaction with different access strategies for administering neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Evidence reviewed

Ovid Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to September 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed each citation. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of cohort and case–control studies.

Findings

Of 1584 citations identified, 15 unique studies met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. There were no randomised studies comparing types of vascular access. Reports included six single-institution retrospective cohort studies, one retrospective multi-institution cohort, one retrospective cohort database study, five prospective single-institution studies, one prospective multi-institution study and one nested case–control study. Median complication rates were infection: 6.0% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.1% PORT (8 studies); thrombosis: 8.9% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.6% PORT (9 studies); extravasation: 0 PICC (1 study) versus 0.4% PORT (4 studies) and mechanical issues: PICC 3.8% (1 study) versus 1.8% PORT (9 studies). Satisfaction/quality of life appeared high with each device.

Conclusion

In the absence of high-quality data comparing vascular access strategies, randomised, adequately powered, prospective studies would be required to help inform clinical practice and reduce variation.

Available only for authorised users

Lipitz-Snyderman A, Elkin EB, Atoria CL, Sima CS, Epstein AS, Blinder V, Sepkowitz KA, Bach PB (2015) Provider differences in use of implanted ports in older adults with cancer. Med Care 53(7):646–652. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000000368 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lipitz-Snyderman A, Ma Q, Pollack MF, Barron J, Elkin EB, Bach PB, Malin JL (2015) Complications associated with use of long-term central venous catheters among commercially insured women with breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 11(6):505–510. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2015.004796 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

LeVasseur N, Stober C, Daigle K, Robinson A, McDiarmid S, Mazzarello S, Hutton B, Joy A, Fergusson D, Hilton J, McInnes M, Clemons M (2018) Optimising vascular access for patients receiving intravenous systemic therapy for early stage breast cancer—a survey of oncology nurses and physicians. Curr Oncol

LeVasseur N, Stober C, Ibrahim M, Gertler S, Hilton J, Robinson A, McDiarmid S, Fergusson D, Hutton B, Joy A, McInnes M, Clemons M (2018) Perceptions around vascular access for intravenous systemic therapy and risk factors for lymphedema in early stage breast cancer—a patient survey. Curr Oncol

Stokowski G, Steele D, Wilson D (2009) The use of ultrasound to improve practice and reduce complication rates in peripherally inserted central catheter insertions: final report of investigation. J Infus Nurs 32(3):145–155. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0b013e3181a1a98f CrossRefPubMed

Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, Markowitz AJ (2001) Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 43(i–x):1–668

Saugel B, Scheeren TWL, Teboul JL (2017) Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical practice. Crit Care 21(1):225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1814-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

McMahon DD (2002) Evaluating new technology to improve patient outcomes: a quality improvement approach. J Infus Nurs 25(4):250–255CrossRefPubMed

Cardella JF, Cardella K, Bacci N, Fox PS, Post JH (1996) Cumulative experience with 1273 peripherally inserted central catheters at a single institution. J Vasc Interv Radiol 7(1):5–13CrossRefPubMed

10.

Nichols I, Humphrey JP (2008) The efficacy of upper arm placement of peripherally inserted central catheters using bedside ultrasound and microintroducer technique. J Infus Nurs 31(3):165–176. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAN.0000317703.66395.b8 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Association for Vascular Access Posiiton Statement: The Use of Seldinger or Modified Seldinger Technique, in combination with Real-Time Imaging Miodalities for Peripheral Inserted Central Catheter and Midline Placements by Clinicians (2011) Heriman, UT

12.

AIUM practice parameter for the use of ultrasound to guide vascular access procedures (2012) Laurel, MD

13.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C (2016) PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 75:40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Wells GSB, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2013) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

16.

Singh KR, Agarwal G, Nanda G, Chand G, Mishra A, Agarwal A, Verma AK, Mishra SK, Goyal P (2014) Morbidity of chemotherapy administration and satisfaction in breast cancer patients: a comparative study of totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) versus peripheral venous access usage. World J Surg 38(5):1084–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2378-x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Curigliano G, Balduzzi A, Cardillo A, Ghisini R, Peruzzotti G, Orlando L, Torrisi R, Dellapasqua S, Lunghi L, Goldhirsch A, Colleoni M (2007) Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer patients treated with infusional chemotherapy after insertion of central vein catheter. Support Care Cancer 15(10):1213–1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0277-0 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Soliman AA, Csorba R, Ullrich A, Tsikouras P, Rath W, von Tempelhoff GF (2014) Antiphopholipid antibodies and functional activated protein C resistance in patients with breast cancer during anthracycline-based chemotherapy administered through an intravenous port-catheter device. Clin Appl Thrombos Hemost 20(3):338–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076029613508598 CrossRef

19.

Kriegel IEM, Guillaume A, Goater P, Asselain B, Queinnec M et al (2005) Prospective study comparing Broviac cuffed catheter and implantable vascular access device for adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: infectious and mechanical risks. J Clin Oncol 23(16_Suppl):8114CrossRef

20.

Nas OF, Hacikurt K, Kaya A, Dogan N, Sanal B, Ozkaya G, Dundar HZ, Erdogan C (2017) Choosing the appropriate side for subcutaneous port catheter placement in patients with mastectomy: ipsilateral or contralateral? Radiol Med 122(6):472–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0736-8 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Debourdeau P, Espie M, Chevret S, Gligorov J, Elias A, Dupre PF, Desseaux K, Kalidi I, Villiers S, Giachetti S, Frere C, Farge D (2017) Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of central venous catheter-related thromboembolism in breast cancer patients: the CAVECCAS study. Cancer Med 6(11):2732–2744. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1201 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Lefebvre L, Noyon E, Georgescu D, Proust V, Alexandru C, Leheurteur M, Thery JC, Savary L, Rigal O, Di Fiore F, Veyret C, Clatot F (2016) Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for postoperative chemotherapy in early breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of 448 patients. Support Care Cancer 24(3):1397–1403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2901-8 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ma LI, Liu Y, Wang J, Chang Y, Yu L, Geng C (2016) Totally implantable venous access port systems and associated complications: a single-institution retrospective analysis of 2996 breast cancer patients. Mol Clin Oncol 4(3):456–460. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.726 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Zhou J, Qian S, He W, Han G, Li H, Luo R (2014) Implanting totally implantable venous access port via the internal jugular vein guided by ultrasonography is feasible and safe in patients with breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol 12:378. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-378 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Harrold K, Martin A, Gale S (2015) Proactive placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. Br J Nurs 24(14):S16–S17. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2015.24.Sup14.S16 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Pardo I, Rager EL, Bowling MW, Fajardo A, Clare S, Goulet R Jr (2011) Central venous port placement: a comparison of axillary versus anterior chest wall placement. Ann Surg Oncol 18(2):468–471. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1353-0 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Gandhi RT, Getrajdman GI, Brown KT, Gandras EJ, Covey AM, Brody LA, Khilnani N (2003) Placement of subcutaneous chest wall ports ipsilateral to axillary lymph node dissection. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14(8):1063–1065CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kreis H, Loehberg CR, Lux MP, Ackermann S, Lang W, Beckmann MW, Fasching PA (2007) Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 33(1):39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2006.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P, Bailet C, Macchiavello JC, Namer M, Gallard JC (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92(1):61–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-1711-y CrossRefPubMed

30.

Study of Palbociclib Alone and in Combination in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory (R/R) Leukemias. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT03132454

31.

Randomized Trial Standard of Care Vascular Access Strategies for (Neo)Adjuvant Trastuzumab-based Breast Cancer Treatment. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02632435

32.

REaCT-vascular Access Her2 Negative Vascular Access Strategies for (Neo) Adjuvant Breast Cancer Treatment Without Trastuzumab. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02688998

33.

Stevens V, Geiger K, Concannon C, Nelson RE, Brown J, Dumyati G (2014) Inpatient costs, mortality and 30-day re-admission in patients with central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 20(5):O318–O324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12407 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review
Authors: Andrew Robinson
Osama Souied
A. Brianne Bota
Nathalie Levasseur
Carol Stober
John Hilton
Dalia Kamel
Brian Hutton
Lisa Vandermeer
Sasha Mazzarello
Anil A. Joy
Dean Fergusson
Sheryl McDiarmid
Mathew McInnes
Risa Shorr
Mark Clemons
Publication date: 01-10-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4868-x

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

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Importance

Objective

Evidence reviewed

Findings

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Correction to: Persistent major alopecia following adjuvant docetaxel for breast cancer: incidence, characteristics, and prevention with scalp cooling

Protein N-glycosylation alteration and glycolysis inhibition both contribute to the antiproliferative action of 2-deoxyglucose in breast cancer cells

Validation of the new AJCC eighth edition of the TNM classification for breast cancer with a single-center breast cancer cohort

LCCC 1025: a phase II study of everolimus, trastuzumab, and vinorelbine to treat progressive HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases

Estrogen-receptor status and risk of contralateral breast cancer following DCIS

Dietary supplements and fatigue in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer