BACKGROUND: The authors investigated how the timing of administration of bevacizumab, a targeted vascular endothelial growth factor-inhibiting chemotherapeutic agent, affected the risk of wound healing in patients undergoing chest wall port placement. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective search was performed of an institutional review board approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant database between 2002 and 2008, identifying 1108 port placements in patients who were treated with bevacizumab. One hundred twenty of these ports eventually required explant. Data analyzed included patient demographics, indication for port removal, and schedule of bevacizumab therapy. RESULTS: Wound healing complications requiring port explant were seen in 0.9% of placements (10/1108). When bevacizumab was given within 1 day of port placement, the absolute risk (AR) of port removal for wound dehiscence was 2.4% (2/82), compared with 0.3% (3/1021) when 2 or more days had passed between port placement and bevacizumab administration, yielding a statistically significant relative risk (RR) of 8.1 (P < .02). Similarly, when bevacizumab was administered within 7 days of port insertion, there was a significant RR of dehiscence-related port explant (AR 1.4% vs 0.1%, RR 11.5, P < .028). However, no significant RR for dehiscence-related port removal was observed when bevacizumab was administered within 14 days (AR 0.9% vs 0.2%, RR 6.2, P < .09) or 30 days (AR 0.7% vs 0.2%, RR 3.7, P < .23) of port placement. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a wound dehiscence requiring chest wall port explant in patients treated with bevacizumab was inversely proportional to the interval between bevacizumab administration and port placement, with significantly higher risk seen when the interval is less than 14 days.
BACKGROUND: The authors investigated how the timing of administration of bevacizumab, a targeted vascular endothelial growth factor-inhibiting chemotherapeutic agent, affected the risk of wound healing in patients undergoing chest wall port placement. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective search was performed of an institutional review board approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant database between 2002 and 2008, identifying 1108 port placements in patients who were treated with bevacizumab. One hundred twenty of these ports eventually required explant. Data analyzed included patient demographics, indication for port removal, and schedule of bevacizumab therapy. RESULTS: Wound healing complications requiring port explant were seen in 0.9% of placements (10/1108). When bevacizumab was given within 1 day of port placement, the absolute risk (AR) of port removal for wound dehiscence was 2.4% (2/82), compared with 0.3% (3/1021) when 2 or more days had passed between port placement and bevacizumab administration, yielding a statistically significant relative risk (RR) of 8.1 (P < .02). Similarly, when bevacizumab was administered within 7 days of port insertion, there was a significant RR of dehiscence-related port explant (AR 1.4% vs 0.1%, RR 11.5, P < .028). However, no significant RR for dehiscence-related port removal was observed when bevacizumab was administered within 14 days (AR 0.9% vs 0.2%, RR 6.2, P < .09) or 30 days (AR 0.7% vs 0.2%, RR 3.7, P < .23) of port placement. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a wound dehiscence requiring chest wall port explant in patients treated with bevacizumab was inversely proportional to the interval between bevacizumab administration and port placement, with significantly higher risk seen when the interval is less than 14 days.
Authors: Frank A Scappaticci; Louis Fehrenbacher; Thomas Cartwright; John D Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Fairooz Kabbinavar; William Novotny; Somnath Sarkar; Herbert Hurwitz Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: B Funaki; G X Szymski; C A Hackworth; J D Rosenblum; R Burke; T Chang; J A Leef Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: L G Presta; H Chen; S J O'Connor; V Chisholm; Y G Meng; L Krummen; M Winkler; N Ferrara Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1997-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Joseph Schulz; Michael McCleod; Taral Patel; John T Hamm; J Randolph Hecht; Robert Mass; Brent Perrou; Betty Nelson; William F Novotny Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Herbert Hurwitz; Louis Fehrenbacher; William Novotny; Thomas Cartwright; John Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Ari Baron; Susan Griffing; Eric Holmgren; Napoleone Ferrara; Gwen Fyfe; Beth Rogers; Robert Ross; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Walter J Zawacki; T Gregory Walker; Emily DeVasher; Elkan F Halpern; Arthur C Waltman; Stephan T Wicky; David P Ryan; Sanjeeva P Kalva Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Ji W Ahn; Doaa Shalabi; Lilia M Correa-Selm; Bahar Dasgeb; Neda Nikbakht; Jisun Cha Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: James Sun; Dennis A Kirichenko; Joyce L Chung; Michael J Carr; Zeynep Eroglu; Nikhil I Khushalani; Joseph Markowitz; Jane L Messina; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager; Sephalie Y Patel Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Harry D Bear; Gong Tang; Priya Rastogi; Charles E Geyer; Christine K Zoon; Kelley M Kidwell; André Robidoux; Luis Baez-Diaz; Adam M Brufsky; Rita S Mehta; Louis Fehrenbacher; James A Young; Francis M Senecal; Rakesh Gaur; Richard G Margolese; Paul T Adams; Howard M Gross; Joseph P Costantino; Soonmyung Paik; Sandra M Swain; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 5.344