Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 19, Issue 10, pp 1573–1580 | Cite as

No impact of central venous insertion site on oncology patients’ quality of life and psychological distress. A randomized three-arm trial

  • Roberto BiffiEmail author
  • Franco Orsi
  • Simonetta Pozzi
  • Andrea Maldifassi
  • Davide Radice
  • Nicole Rotmensz
  • Maria Giulia Zampino
  • Nicola Fazio
  • Giulia Peruzzotti
  • Florence Didier
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Though totally implantable access ports (TIAP) are extensively used, information from randomized trials about the impact of insertion site on patient’s quality of life (QoL) and psychological distress is unavailable.

Patients and methods

Four hundred and three patients eligible for receiving intravenous chemotherapy for solid tumours were randomly assigned to implantation of a single type of TIAP, either through a percutaneous landmark access to the internal jugular or an ultrasound-guided access to the subclavian or a surgical cut-down access through the cephalic vein at the deltoid-pectoralis groove. Patients’ QoL and psychological distress were investigated at regular intervals by means of EORTC QLQ-C30 and HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) questionnaires, using univariate and multivariate repeated measure linear mixed models. A post hoc analysis investigated the impact of type of administered chemotherapy (adjuvant vs palliative).

Results

Three hundred and eighty-four patients (95.2%) were evaluable, 126 with the internal jugular, 132 with the subclavian and 126 with the cephalic vein access. The median follow-up was 361 days (range, 0–1,087). Mean score changes for the items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales were significantly associated with type of administered chemotherapy only (P < 0.001), and not with implantation site. Frequency distribution of patients with depression and anxiety score greater than 10 at HADS was not significantly different, with respect either to type of administered chemotherapy or TIAP implantation site.

Conclusion

Central venous insertion sites had no impact on patients’ QoL and psychological distress. Patients undergoing palliative therapies showed worse EORTC QLQ-C30 scales.

Keywords

TIAP implantation site QoL HADS Chemotherapy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Authors gratefully thank Katia Lorizzo, MD, Sabine Cenciarelli, MD, Emilio Bertani, MD for their support in patients’ accrual, Mrs. Adriana Barioli for her technical assistance, Mara Ghioni, MSc and Rosalba Lembo, MSc-PhD for data management.

Bard Italia – Rome offered technical support for this study.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 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 33:1190–1194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 92:1204–1212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S et al (2009) Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 20:935–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johansson E, Engervall P, Bjorvell H et al (2009) Patients’ perceptions of having a central venous catheter or a totally implantable subcutaneous port system—results from a randomized study inb acute leukaemia. Support Care Cancer 17:137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B et al (2009) An 11-year retrospective study of totally implantanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:241–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) The european organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trails in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67:361–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Costantini M, Musso M, Viterbori P et al (1999) Detecting psychological distress in cancer patients: validity of the Italian version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Support Care Cancer 7:121–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F et al (1998) Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analysing complications and costs in 333 devices with a minimum 180 days of follow-up. Ann Oncol 9:767–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Sunduqchi Mahdi S (1990). Determining the appropriate sample size for inferences based on the Wilcoxon statistics. Ph.D. dissertation under the direction of William C. Guenther, Dept. Of Statistics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WYGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A (2001) EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual, 3rd edn. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osoba D, Bezjak A, Brundage M (2005) for the Quality of Life committee of the NCIC CTG. Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality of life data from clinical trials: basic approach of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Eur J Cancer 41:280–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rao CR (1971) Estimation of variance and covariance components: MINQUE theory. J Multivar Anal 1:257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallieni M, Pittiruti M, Biffi R (2008) Vascular access in oncology patients. CA Cancer J Clin 58:323–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mueller BU, Skelton J, Callender DP (1992) A prospective randomized trial comparing the infectious and noninfectious complications of an externalized catheter versus a subcutaneously implanted device in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 10:1943–1948PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreis H, Loehberg CR, Lux MP et al (2007) Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:39–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chenecky C (2001) Satisfaction versus dissatisfaction with venous access devices in outpatient oncology: a pilot study. Oncol Nurs Forum 28:1613–1616Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ng F, Mastoroudes H, Paul E et al (2007) A comparison of Hickman line and Port-a-Cath associated complications in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19:551–556Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dearborn P, De Muth JS, Requarth AB, Ward SE (1997) Nurse and patient satisfaction with three types of venous access devices. Oncol Nurs Forum 24(1 suppl):34–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goossens GA, Vrebos M, Stas M et al (2005) Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports? J Infus Nurs 28:61–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Landen CN, Younger NO, Sharp BAC, Underwood PB (2003) Cancer patients’ satisfaction with physicians: Princess Margaret Hospital satisfaction with doctor questionnaire results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1177–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Guadagnoli E et al (2005) Patients’ perception of quality of care for colorectal cancer by race, ethnicity, and language. J Clin Oncol 23:6576–6586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marcy PY, Magné N, Castadot P et al (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 92:61–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marcy PY, Magné N, Castadot P et al (2007) Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients? Analysis of a large Bi-institutional experience. Cancer 110:2331–2338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McGee DC, Gould MK (2003) Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 348:1123–1133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vescia S, Baumgärtner AK, Jacobs VR et al (2008) Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 19:9–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Araújo C, Silva JP, Antunes P et al (2008) A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:222–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Biffi R, Pozzi S, Agazzi A et al (2004) Use of totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: results of a monocentre series of 376 patients. Ann Oncol 15:296–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verso M, Agnelli G (2003) Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 21:3665–3675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ (2006) The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 81:1159–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bow EJ, Kilpatrick MG, Clinch JJ (1999) Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: a randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol 17:1267–1273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arch P (2007) Port navigation: let the journey begin. Clin J Oncol Nurs 11:485–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Biffi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Franco Orsi
    • 2
  • Simonetta Pozzi
    • 1
  • Andrea Maldifassi
    • 3
  • Davide Radice
    • 4
  • Nicole Rotmensz
    • 4
  • Maria Giulia Zampino
    • 5
  • Nicola Fazio
    • 5
  • Giulia Peruzzotti
    • 5
  • Florence Didier
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Abdomino-Pelvic SurgeryEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  2. 2.Interventional Radiology UnitEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  3. 3.Psycho-Oncology UnitEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  4. 4.Division of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  5. 5.Department of MedicineEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations