LeVasseur N, Stober C, Ibrahim M, Gertler S, Hilton J, Robinson A, McDiarmid S, Fergusson D, Mazzarello S, Hutton B, Joy A A, McInnes M, Clemons M
Division of Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa.
The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa.
Curr Oncol. 2018 Aug;25(4):e305-e310. doi: 10.3747/co.25.3911. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
The choice of vascular access for systemic therapy administration in breast cancer remains an area of clinical equipoise, and patient preference is not consistently acknowledged. Using a patient survey, we evaluated the patient experience with vascular access during treatment for early-stage breast cancer and explored perceived risk factors for lymphedema.
Patients who had received systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer were surveyed at 2 Canadian cancer centres.
Responses were received from 187 patients (94%). The route of vascular access was peripheral intravenous line (IV) in 24%, a peripherally inserted central catheter (picc) in 42%, and a surgically inserted central catheter (port) in 34%. Anthracycline-based regimens were associated with a greater use of central vascular access devices (cvads- that is, a picc or port; 86/97, 89%). Trastuzumab use was associated with greater use of ports (49/64, 77%). Although few patients (7%) reported being involved in the decisions about vascular access, most were satisfied or very satisfied (88%) with their access type. Patient preference centred mainly on avoiding delays in the initiation of chemotherapy. Self-reported rates of complications (183 evaluable responses) were infiltration with peripheral IVs (9/44, 20%), local skin infections with piccs (7/77, 9%), and thrombosis with ports (4/62, 6%). Perceived risk factors for lymphedema included use of the surgical arm for blood draws (117/156, 75%) and blood pressure measurement (115/156, 74%).
Most patients reported being satisfied with the vascular access used for their treatment. Improved education and understanding about the evidence-based requirements for vascular access are needed. Perceived risk factors for lymphedema remain variable and are not evidence-based.
乳腺癌全身治疗的血管通路选择仍是临床权衡的一个领域,患者的偏好并未得到一致认可。通过一项患者调查,我们评估了早期乳腺癌治疗期间患者使用血管通路的体验,并探讨了淋巴水肿的感知风险因素。
在加拿大的2个癌症中心对接受早期乳腺癌全身治疗的患者进行了调查。
共收到187名患者(94%)的回复。血管通路的途径为外周静脉留置针(IV)占24%,外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)占42%,外科植入中心静脉导管(PORT)占34%。基于蒽环类药物的方案与更多使用中心血管通路装置(CVAD,即PICC或PORT;86/97,89%)相关。使用曲妥珠单抗与更多使用PORT相关(49/64,77%)。尽管很少有患者(7%)报告参与了血管通路的决策,但大多数患者(88%)对其通路类型感到满意或非常满意。患者的偏好主要集中在避免化疗开始时的延误。自我报告的并发症发生率(183份可评估回复)为外周静脉留置针渗漏(9/44,20%),PICC局部皮肤感染(7/77,9%),PORT血栓形成(4/62,6%)。淋巴水肿的感知风险因素包括使用手术侧手臂采血(117/156,75%)和测量血压(115/156,74%)。
大多数患者报告对其治疗中使用的血管通路感到满意。需要加强对血管通路循证要求的教育和理解。淋巴水肿的感知风险因素仍然各不相同,且缺乏循证依据。