A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Issue 9 (October 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Martella, Francesca; Salutari, Vanda; Marchetti, Claudia; Pisano, Carmela; Di Napoli, Marilena; Pietta, Francesca; Centineo, Dina; Caringella, Anna M.; Musella, Angela; Fioretto, Luisa
• Is Part Of: Anti-cancer drugs. Volume 26:Issue 9(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-10
• Subjects: Antineoplastic agents -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chemotherapy -- Periodicals; Antineoplastic Agents -- therapeutic use -- Periodicals; Drug Therapy -- Periodicals; 616.994061
• DOI: 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000275
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0959-4973

Abstract

<abstract> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec> <p>The European Medicines Agency strongly recommends administration of trabectedin through a central venous catheter (CVC) to minimize the risk of extravasation. However, CVCs place patients at risk of catheter-related complications and have a significant budgetary impact for oncology departments. The most frequently used CVCs are subcutaneously implanted PORT-chamber catheters (PORTs); peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are relatively new. We reviewed data of trabectedin-treated patients to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of PORTs and PICCs in six Italian centres. Data on 102 trabectedin-treated patients (20 with sarcoma, 80 with ovarian cancer and two with cervical cancer) were evaluated. Forty-five patients received trabectedin by a PICC, inserted by trained nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at the bedside, whereas 57 patients received trabectedin infusion by a PORT, requiring a day surgery procedure in the hospital by a surgeon. Device dislocation and infections were reported in four patients, equally distributed between PORT or PICC users. Thrombosis occurred in a single patient with a PORT. Complications requiring devices removal were not reported during any of the 509 cycles of therapy (median 5; range 1–20). PICC misplacement or early malfunctions were not reported during trabectedin infusion. The cost-efficiency ratio favours PORT over PICC only when the device is used for more than 1 year. Our data suggest that trabectedin infusion by PICC is safe and well accepted, with a preferable cost-efficiency ratio compared with PORT in patients requiring short-term use of the device (⩽1 year).</p> </sec> </abstract>