ArticleJCO oncology practice2024
Use of Peripheral Intravenous Access in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy for Testicular Cancer.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSystemic chemotherapy, depending on the regimen, can be administered through peripheral intravenous (pIV) access or through central venous access devices (CVADs). There is no current best practice regarding optimal access for chemotherapy for patients with testicular cancer (TC). We retrospectively evaluated patients undergoing systemic chemotherapy for TC and compared baseline characteristics and complications of patients using pIV versus CVADs.
methodsWe included patients with TC who underwent first-line systemic chemotherapy at the University of Colorado Hospitals from 2005 to 2020. Data were collected on demographics, cancer characteristics, type, duration of chemotherapy, pIV or CVAD use, and associated complication rates. We then performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses to compare complication rates and risk factors for each group.
resultsOne hundred fifty-four patients met inclusion criteria. Ninety-two (60%) patients used CVADs, and 62 patients (40%) used pIV for their initial treatment. Only six (9.7%) of 62 patients transitioned from pIV to CVADs during therapy. Similarly, 10 of 92 (10.9%) patients with initial CVAD needed to transition to a different type of CVAD or to pIV (
conclusionPeripheral IV use for first-line nonvesicant chemotherapy in patients with TC appears to be well tolerated with high rates of therapy completion and lower rates of complications when compared with CVADs. These data support our preferred treatment approach and provide evidence that pIV access is a safe and effective way to deliver chemotherapy for patients with TC.
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.