[Subcutaneous implantation type central venous port management in patients with malignant tumors effect of different antiseptic agents on central venous port-related infection].

Subcutaneous implantation type central venous ports(CV ports)are used in chemotherapy. Here, we prospectively examined the frequency of CV port-related infections when the disinfectant was changed from 10% povidone iodine to 1% chlorhexidine ethanol or 70% ethanol. The subjects were patients with malignant tumors, who had newly been implanted with CV ports. We examined CV port-related infections at 1 week after CV port implantation and every 2 weeks thereafter, following sterilization upon insertion of a Huber needle to the CV port. CV port evulsion due to CV port-related infection was noted in 3 patients(4.8%)in whom 15%chlorhexidine ethanol was used(n=62)and in 2 patients(3.3%)in whom 70% ethanol was used(n=60). Infection rates per 1,000 days of CV port use were 1.48% and 1.01%, respectively. Thus, the outcomes of sterilization using 1% chlorhexidine ethanol and 70% ethanol did not differ significantly from those on using 10% povidone iodine for sterilization, based on preliminary results at our institution(3 of 59 patients[5.1%]had port evulsion due to CV port-related infection and the infection rate per 1,000 days of CV port use was 1.47%, Akahane et al, 2012). Chlorhexidine ethanol and ethanol are very convenient to use because they dry quickly and do not need discoloration. Accordingly, chlorhexidine ethanol and ethanol might be useful in CV port management.

Combined intra-arterial infusion and systemic chemoradiotherapy for stage IV squamous cell carcinoma of the mandibular gingiva.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to show the effectiveness of combining intra-arterial infusion and systemic chemotherapy with concurrent radiotherapy for treatment of stage IV mandibular gingival cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 23 patients with mandibular gingival cancer were treated with either docetaxel by intra-arterial infusion followed by systemic chemoradiotherapy with cisplatinum and 5-fluorouracil as a monthly regimen, or with docetaxel and cisplatinum by intra-arterial infusion followed by systemic chemoradiotherapy with 5-fluorouracil as a weekly or biweekly regimen. Tumor responses, locoregional control, overall survival, disease-specific survival, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 23 patients enrolled in the study, 22 completed the treatment. With regard to clinical stages, 82 % were diagnosed as IVA and 18 % IVB. Complete and partial response was observed in 82 and 18 %, respectively. Five-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and locoregional control were 51, 70, and 72 %, respectively. No statistically significant difference was seen between the monthly regimen and the weekly plus biweekly regimen, although the latter resulted in longer survival and 88 % control. CONCLUSION: Combined intra-arterial infusion and systemic chemoradiotherapy may be an effective treatment for patients with stage IV mandibular gingival cancer.

Central venous port-related infection in patients with malignant tumors: an observational study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the characteristics of central venous port (CVP)-related infection with microbiological assessments in patients with malignant tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective setting, patients with CVP for the treatment of malignant tumors were enrolled in this study. The incidence of CVP-related infection during three months was determined. Microbiological surveillance from skin swab was performed before and after CVP placement. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this study, and 60 CVPs were implanted. Thirty-six (61%) patients had head and neck malignancies. Access route was subclavian vein in 43 (71.7%) CVPs and forearm vein in 17 (28.3%). CVP-related infection was observed in three (5.1%) patients: port-pocket infection in one and probable CVP-related infection in two patients, respectively. No definitive CVP-related bloodstream infection was observed. Before the placement of CVP, colonization at the insertion site was observed in ten subclavian CVP patients, while no colonization was observed in the forearm CVP patients. At 1 and 4 weeks, detection rates of colonization were also higher in subclavian CVP patients. No definitive relationship was demonstrated between skin colonization and clinical development of CVP-related infection. CONCLUSION: The rate of CVP-related infection in this prospective evaluation in patients with malignant tumors was comparable to previous studies. Colonization of the skin was more prominent in the subclavian site than in the forearm site. Although skin colonization was not proven to be a risk factor of infection, these results may draw attention to the adequate maintenance of CVP. ( TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000003664).

Subclavian vein versus arm vein for totally implantable central venous port for patients with head and neck cancer: a retrospective comparative analysis.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare central venous ports (CVP) from two different routes of venous access-the subclavian vein and arm vein-in terms of safety for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Patients with HNC who underwent image-guided implantations of CVPs were retrospectively evaluated. All CVPs were implanted under local anesthesia. Primary outcome measurements were rates and types of adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included technical success and rate and reason of CVP removal. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients (subclavian port group, 47; arm port group, 115) were included in this study. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The median follow-up period was 94 (range, 1-891) days. Two patients in the subclavian port group experienced periprocedural complications. Postprocedural AEs were observed in 8.5 and 22.6% of the subclavian port and arm port group patients, respectively (P = 0.044). Phlebitis and system occlusions were observed only in the arm port group. The rate of infection was not significantly different between the two groups. The CVP was removed in 34 and 39.1% of the subclavian port and arm port patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both subclavian and arm CVPs are feasible in patients with HNC. AEs were more frequent in the arm port group; thus, the arm port is not recommended as the first choice for patients with HNC. However, further experience is needed to improve the placement technique and the maintenance of CVPs and a prospective analysis is warranted.