N LeVasseur1, C Stober2, M Ibrahim1, S Gertler1, J Hilton1,2, A Robinson3, S McDiarmid4, D Fergusson2,5, S Mazzarello2, B Hutton2,5, A A Joy6, M McInnes2,7, M Clemons1,2,5. 1. Division of Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa. 2. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston. 4. Department of Nursing, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa; and. 5. Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON. 6. Department of Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Alberta, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Abstract
Background: 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. Methods: Patients who had received systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer were surveyed at 2 Canadian cancer centres. Results: 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%). Conclusions: 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.
Background: 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. Methods:Patients who had received systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer were surveyed at 2 Canadian cancer centres. Results: 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%). Conclusions: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Early-stage breast cancer; patient surveys; vascular access
Authors: Kristine R Broglio; Melanie Quintana; Margaret Foster; Melissa Olinger; Anna McGlothlin; Scott M Berry; Jean-François Boileau; Christine Brezden-Masley; Stephen Chia; Susan Dent; Karen Gelmon; Alexander Paterson; Daniel Rayson; Donald A Berry Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Anthony Lucci; Linda Mackie McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Patrick W Whitworth; Douglas S Reintgen; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukumal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Peto; C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; H C Pan; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; C Taylor; Y C Wang; J Bergh; A Di Leo; K Albain; S Swain; M Piccart; K Pritchard Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mark Clemons; Carol Stober; Anne Kehoe; Debbie Bedard; Fiona MacDonald; Marie-Claude Brunet; Deanna Saunders; Lisa Vandermeer; Sasha Mazzarello; Arif Awan; Bassam Basulaiman; Andrew Robinson; Ranjeeta Mallick; Brian Hutton; Dean Fergusson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bella Pajares; Cristina Roldán-Jiménez; Emilio Alba; Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 4.614