Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 1

3471 - Randomized phase 2 trial evaluating the safety of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters during adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients.

Date

28 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 1

Topics

Supportive Care and Symptom Management

Tumour Site

Breast Cancer

Presenters

Florian Clatot

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v718-v746. 10.1093/annonc/mdz265

Authors

F. Clatot1, M. Fontanilles2, L. Lefebvre3, J. Lequesne4, C. Veyret1, C. Alexandru1, M. Leheurteur1, C. Guillemet1, S. Gouérant1, C. Petrau1, J. Thery1, O. Rigal1, C. Moldovan1, I. Tennevet Bouilly1, O. Rastelli5, M. Bubenheim6, D. Georgescu7, J. Gouérant7, M. Gilles-Baray7, F. Di Fiore1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Centre Henri Becquerel, 76038 - Rouen/FR
  • 2 Medical Oncology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen/FR
  • 3 Radiation Therapy, Centre Henri Becquerel, 76038 - Rouen/FR
  • 4 Biostatistics, Centre Henri Becquerel, 76038 - Rouen/FR
  • 5 Clinical Research, Centre Henri Becquerel, 76038 - Rouen/FR
  • 6 Biostatistics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen/FR
  • 7 Surgical Oncology, Centre Henri Becquerel, 76038 - Rouen/FR

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 3471

Background

Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and implanted port catheters (PORT) are used for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) administration in early breast cancer (EBC) patients. We evaluated the safety of the two devices in ACT setting.

Methods

This monocentric phase II randomized trial (NCT02095743) included patients with an EBC and eligible to an ACT. Patients with curative anticoagulation were excluded. The primary endpoint was to identify the device with the less probability of occurrence of a significant adverse event related to the central venous device (SAERCVD) during the 37 weeks following device implantation. A SAERCVD was defined as: CTCAE grade ≥3, inducing a delay in CT administration >7 days, or requiring a replacement of the implanted device. PICC were removed the day of last CT administration; PORT were removed within 4 weeks after the last CT administration. Based on our previous study (Support Care Cancer. 2016; 24(3):1397-403), 256 patients were needed to meet the primary endpoint.

Results

From February 2014 to April 2018, 256 patients were included; 248 (97%) were analyzed (PICC, n = 125; PORT, n = 123). Overall, 25 patients (10%) had a SAERCVD: thrombosis (n = 13), local infection (n = 6), systemic infection (n = 3) and mechanical complication (n = 3). Probability of occurrence of a SAERCVD within 37 weeks was 4.9% (6 SAERCVD) in PORT vs 15.2% (19 SAERCVD) in PICC (HR = 3.2 [1.3-8.1], p = 0.007). Regarding baseline characteristics, patients experiencing a SAERCVD had a trend toward a higher body mass index (p = 0.08) and a history of thrombo-embolic disease (p = 0.08) compared to patients without SAERCVD. Among the 223 patients without SAERCVD, probability of occurrence of a non-significant adverse event related to the device was 20.8% (22/106) in PICC vs 17.1% (20/117) in PORT (HR = 1.2 [0.7-2.2], p = 0.5), mainly grade 1 local pruritus. Grade≥3 adverse events not related to the implanted device were observed for 48 patients in each group (HR = 1 [0.7-1.5], p = 0.9), mainly CT induced neutropenia.

Conclusions

Although side effects related to central venous devices are rare during ACT in EBC patients, SAERCVD are more frequently observed with PICC rather than PORT.

Clinical trial identification

2012-A01440-43 NCT02095743.

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Florian Clatot.

Funding

La Ligue contre le cancer.

Disclosure

F. Clatot: Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.