Observational studyBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2024
Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port.
Observational study in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Implantable Ports vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Pooled it
- Safety of totally implantable venous access devices and peripherally inserted central catheters in hematological malignancies patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Beyond Device Safety: Organisational Burden and Quality of Life in Oncology Outpatients with PICCs. A Descriptive Exploratory Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Early catheter-related thrombosis in oncology patients with central venous access devices: a narrative review of incidence, mechanisms and clinical implications.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a comparative cross-sectional study of CICC ports and PICC-ports.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Associations of Patient Morphology and Venous Anatomy with Early Changes in Upper-Extremity Venous Blood Flow Following PICC Placement in Patients with Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
- Prevention of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)-Associated Vein Thrombosis in Cancer: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Implantable Port Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Cancer Patients Requiring Chemotherapy: An RCT-Based Meta-Analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripherally 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsBetween 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.
conclusionsIn 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.
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.