接受新辅助化疗的乳腺癌妇女的生活质量:PICC 和 PICC 端口的比较。

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Breast Cancer Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z
Fulvio Pinelli, Francesco Barbani, Barbara Defilippo, Angela Fundarò, Alessandra Nella, Valentina Selmi, Stefano Romagnoli, Gianluca Villa
{"title":"接受新辅助化疗的乳腺癌妇女的生活质量:PICC 和 PICC 端口的比较。","authors":"Fulvio Pinelli, Francesco Barbani, Barbara Defilippo, Angela Fundarò, Alessandra Nella, Valentina Selmi, Stefano Romagnoli, Gianluca Villa","doi":"10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.</p>","PeriodicalId":56083,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port.\",\"authors\":\"Fulvio Pinelli, Francesco Barbani, Barbara Defilippo, Angela Fundarò, Alessandra Nella, Valentina Selmi, Stefano Romagnoli, Gianluca Villa\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breast Cancer\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341727/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breast Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-024-01608-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:外周置入中心导管(PICC)和新型臂端导管(PICC-port)目前被用于乳腺癌患者的新辅助化疗。我们旨在比较接受这两种装置之一的患者的生活质量(QoL),调查总体满意度、心理影响、对职业、社交和体育活动的影响以及局部不适:我们对 PICC 与 PICC 端口进行了前后对比的前瞻性观察研究。研究对象包括接受新辅助化疗的成年(年龄≥ 18 岁)女性乳腺癌患者。主要结果是根据生活质量评估静脉装置导管(QLAVD)问卷对装置植入12个月后的生活质量进行评估:结果:2019 年 5 月至 2020 年 11 月间,在筛选出的 278 名符合条件者中,有 210 人被纳入。与 PICC 相比,PICC 端口更受欢迎,QLAVD 得分为 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014)。具体而言,与心理影响、社会方面和不适感有关的大多数 QLAVD 构建都倾向于 PICC 端口,而不是 PICC,尤其是在 60 岁以下的女性中。总体而言,两组患者在插入时和用药期间的疼痛评分以及感染、继发性定位不良、血栓形成或装置阻塞等方面均无显著差异:结论:在接受新辅助化疗的乳腺癌女性患者中,就生活质量而言,PICC导管口的接受度总体上优于PICC导管,尤其是在年轻患者中。与装置相关的并发症相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port.

Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port.

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.

Methods: We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.

Results: Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.

Conclusions: In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer ONCOLOGY-OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.50%
发文量
105
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Breast Cancer, the official journal of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society, publishes articles that contribute to progress in the field, in basic or translational research and also in clinical research, seeking to develop a new focus and new perspectives for all who are concerned with breast cancer. The journal welcomes all original articles describing clinical and epidemiological studies and laboratory investigations regarding breast cancer and related diseases. The journal will consider five types of articles: editorials, review articles, original articles, case reports, and rapid communications. Although editorials and review articles will principally be solicited by the editors, they can also be submitted for peer review, as in the case of original articles. The journal provides the best of up-to-date information on breast cancer, presenting readers with high-impact, original work focusing on pivotal issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信