A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on choice of central venous access device for delivery of chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Ensuring reliable central venous access with the fewest complications is vital for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of different types of central venous access devices (CVADs) for patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 20, 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing the various CVADs (ie, nontunneled central venous catheters [CVCs], peripherally inserted CVCs [PICCs], totally implantable venous access ports [TIVAPs], and tunneled CVCs). RESULTS: A total of 11 eligible randomized controlled trials of 2585 patients were identified. TIVAPs were associated with a lower odds of overall complications, device removal due to complications, and thrombotic and mechanical complications compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.69; OR, 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.93; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62; and OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.95, respectively). Tunneled CVCs were associated with a higher odds of overall complications, device removal due to complications, and infective complications compared with TIVAPs (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.30-2.17; OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.34-4.73; and OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.14-3.90, respectively). The ranking probability using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values indicated that TIVAPs had the lowest probability of overall complications, removal due to complications, and thrombotic complications. CONCLUSIONS: TIVAPs were found to be superior in terms of complications and quality of life compared with other CVADs, without compromising cost-effectiveness, and should be considered the standard of care for patients receiving chemotherapy.

A lower cut-off for lymph node harvest predicts for poorer overall survival after rectal surgery post neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A lymph node harvest (LNH) of < 12 is a predictor for poor prognosis in rectal cancer patients. However, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) is known to decrease LNH; hence, a cut-off of 12 is inappropriate in such patients. This paper aims to establish a LNH cut-off predictive for disease-free and overall survival in NACRT patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for rectal cancer from 2006 to 2013 was performed. All patients with R1/2 resections and presence of metastases and those operated on for recurrence were excluded. Patient demographics, clinical features, operative details, LNH, 30-day mortality and disease-free and overall survival were recorded. P values of < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were studied, with 174 (68%) males and a median age of 66 years. Ninety-four (37%) patients received long-course NACRT, and 122 (48%) patients were stage 2 and below. Median LNH was 17, which was reduced in the NACRT group (14 versus 23, P < 0.01). Average length of stay was 9 ± 8 days, with a major post-operative complication rate of 4%. Using hazard ratio plots for the NACRT subgroup, LNH cut-offs of 16.5 and 8.5 were obtained for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) respectively. Survival analysis showed that a LNH cut-off of 8.5 was a significant predictor of OS (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: LNH is reduced in patients receiving NACRT before rectal cancer surgery. A LNH of 9 and above is associated with improved overall survival. We propose that this can be used as a tool for prognosis.