Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014
Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
53 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of totally implantable venous access devices and peripherally inserted central catheters in hematological malignancies patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Adult oncology patients' experiences of living with a central venous catheter: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- The risk of bloodstream infection associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Preference versus protocol: oncology clinicians' perspectives on central venous access for administration of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Indian Expert Consensus on the Selection of Vascular Access Devices in Oncology Patients.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implanted port catheters in patients with breast cancer: aBJA open · 2025Article
- Translation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the quality of life vascular access device questionnaire for chemotherapy patients.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
- Implantable Port Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Cancer Patients Requiring Chemotherapy: An RCT-Based Meta-Analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2025Review
- Glucocorticoid use and parenteral nutrition are risk factors for catheter-relatedAsian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2024Article
- Incidence and clinical progression of asymptomatic peripherally inserted central catheterResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Psychological experiences and needs of tumor patients with implanted intravenous infusion ports: a qualitative study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Clinical applications and research progress of totally implantable venous access ports: a literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Predictors of central line-associated bloodstream infections in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy through implanted venous access ports: a retrospective, observational study.Translational cancer research · 2023Article
- Anatomical Structures to Be Concerned With During Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Procedures.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Biomarkers Associated with Thrombosis in Patients with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- [Application of Midline Catheter Placed Under Ultrasound Guidance in Intravenous Therapy for Oral and Maxillofacial Tumor].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2023Article
- Cost-utility analysis of different venous access devices in breast cancer patients: a decision-based analysis model.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIndwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.
methodsSeventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications.
resultsPort devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09-0.86, P = 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days, P = 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %, P = 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms.
conclusionsPort devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.