Vokes E E, Schilsky R L, Choi K E, Magid D M, Guarnieri C M, Whaling S M, Ratain M J, Weichselbaum R R, Panje W R
Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, IL.
Cancer. 1989 Jan 1;63(1):30-6. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<30::aid-cncr2820630105>3.0.co;2-m.
This study was designed to evaluate the safety, reliability, and patient acceptance of outpatient continuous intravenous infusion (CVI) chemotherapy. Twenty-two patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer received induction chemotherapy with methotrexate, cisplatin and a 5-day CVI of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Patients were randomized to receive the 5-FU portion of cycle 1 either by a standard inpatient CVI chemotherapy delivery device (standard pump) or by the Infusor (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL), a portable chemotherapy delivery system that provides a constant flow of drug over a period of 24 hours. For cycle 2, patients crossed over to the alternative drug delivery method. Patients receiving chemotherapy via the Infusor could choose to be either inpatients or outpatients. Daily plasma concentrations of 5-FU were determined during the first two cycles of chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in the mean steady state plasma 5-FU levels achieved with either drug delivery method (329.7 +/- 95.8 ng/ml for infusor cycles vs. 352.8 +/- 114.9 ng/ml for standard pump cycles). Clinical toxicities consisted primarily of mucositis for both methods of drug delivery. Eight patients declined to receive CVI chemotherapy as outpatients citing as reasons fear of malfunction of the device, inconvenience of the frequent clinic visits necessitated by daily monitoring of plasma 5-FU concentrations, and restrictions in daily home activities. Eleven patients underwent CVI chemotherapy via Infusor as outpatients. All reported outpatient CVI chemotherapy as convenient and effective and, when eligible, chose it again in subsequent cycles. A comparison of estimated costs revealed reductions in daily costs of +366.00 (+2,200.00 per cycle) for outpatient chemotherapy. Outpatient CVI chemotherapy is a reliable drug delivery method that was accepted by a majority of patients in this study. These factors may help to establish outpatient CVI chemotherapy as a viable alternative to hospitalization.
本研究旨在评估门诊持续静脉输注(CVI)化疗的安全性、可靠性及患者接受度。22例局部晚期头颈癌患者接受了甲氨蝶呤、顺铂诱导化疗以及为期5天的5-氟尿嘧啶(5-FU)CVI化疗。患者被随机分为两组,第1周期的5-FU部分分别通过标准住院CVI化疗给药装置(标准泵)或Infusor(百特医疗保健公司,伊利诺伊州迪尔菲尔德)给药,Infusor是一种便携式化疗给药系统,可在24小时内持续给药。第2周期,患者交叉使用另一种给药方法。通过Infusor接受化疗的患者可选择住院或门诊治疗。在化疗的前两个周期测定每日5-FU血浆浓度。两种给药方法所达到的平均稳态血浆5-FU水平无显著差异(Infusor周期为329.7±95.8 ng/ml,标准泵周期为352.8±114.9 ng/ml)。两种给药方法的临床毒性主要为黏膜炎。8例患者拒绝接受门诊CVI化疗,理由包括担心设备故障、因每日监测血浆5-FU浓度而需频繁门诊就诊带来的不便以及日常家庭活动受限。11例患者通过Infusor接受门诊CVI化疗。所有患者均报告门诊CVI化疗方便有效,且符合条件时在后续周期会再次选择。估计成本比较显示,门诊化疗每日成本降低了366.00(每周期降低2200.00)。门诊CVI化疗是一种可靠的给药方法,本研究中的大多数患者都能接受。这些因素可能有助于将门诊CVI化疗确立为住院治疗的可行替代方案。