Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial.

BACKGROUND: Centrally inserted totally implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used for the administration of chemotherapy. Our aim was to study the incidence of catheter-related deep venous thrombosis in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy through either a PICC or a PORT. METHODS: Adults with non-haematological cancer (mainly breast and colorectal) from two Swedish oncology centres were included and followed for up to 1 yr. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single-lumen PICC or PORT. The primary end point was the occurrence of a clinically significant catheter-related deep venous thrombosis, and the secondary end point was a composite of adverse events related to the catheter: insertion complication, thrombosis, occlusion, infection, and mechanical problems. RESULTS: The trial recruited 399 participants (PICC, n=201; PORT, n=198) between March 2013 and February 2017. The PICCs were associated with 16 (8%) deep venous thromboses compared with two (1%) in the PORT group (HR=10.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-44.6; P=0.002). The overall incidence of composite adverse events was higher for patients with a PICC compared with those with a PORT (HR=2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PICCs are associated with higher risk for catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and other adverse events when compared with PORTs. This increased risk should be considered when choosing a vascular access device for chemotherapy, especially in patients with solid malignancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01971021.

First clinical experience with the magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent and superoxide dismutase mimetic mangafodipir as an adjunct in cancer chemotherapy-a translational study.

Preclinical research suggests that the clinically approved magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent mangafodipir may protect against adverse events (AEs) caused by chemotherapy, without interfering negatively with the anticancer efficacy. The present translational study tested if pretreatment with mangafodipir lowers AEs during curative (adjuvant) FOLFOX6 chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer (Dukes' C). The study was originally scheduled to include 20 patients, but because of the unforeseen withdrawal of mangafodipir from the market, the study had to be closed after 14 patients had been included. The withdrawal of mangafodipir was purely based on commercial considerations from the producer and not on any safety concerns. The patients were treated throughout the first 3 of 12 scheduled cycles. Patients were randomized to a 5-minute infusion of either mangafodipir or placebo (7 in each group). AEs were evaluated according to the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Sanofi-NCI criteria. The primary end points were neutropenia and neurosensory toxicity. There were four AEs of grade 3 (severe) and one AE of grade 4 (life threatening) in four patients in the placebo group, whereas there were none in the mangafodipir group (P < .05). Of the grade 3 and 4 events, two were neutropenia and one was neurosensory toxicity. Furthermore, white blood cell count was statistically, significantly higher in the mangafodipir group than in the placebo group (P < .01) after treatment with FOLFOX. This small feasibility study seems to confirm what has been demonstrated preclinically, namely, that pretreatment with mangafodipir lowers AEs during adjuvant 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colon cancer patients.