ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Symptomatic malignant ascites drainage with a patient-controlled vascular catheter: interim analysis of safety and patient-reported outcomes.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malignant ascites (MA) and repeated paracentesis can impair a patient's quality of life (QOL). The aim was to perform an interim analysis of safety and changes in patients' QOL in an ongoing prospective, multicentre (conducted within the Central and Eastern European Gynaecologic Oncology Group (CEEGOG)) trial on symptomatic MA drainage with a patient-controlled central vascular catheter (CVC) inserted into the abdominal cavity. CVC (14-Ga) was inserted into the abdominal cavity of patients with symptomatic MA, and drainage was controlled by patients at home. The rate and quality of complications were classified according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0. QOL was evaluated before and 10-14 days after/during drainage with standardized QLQ-C15-PAL, SGA, and FACIT-TS-G questionnaires. Wilcoxon and Chi-squared tests were used. Among 113 recruited patients (2015-2022), seven patients experienced complications (6.2%), and there was one patient with a serious adverse event (death on the 9th day after catheter insertion, classified as not related to the intervention). Adverse events included local infection (n = 2) (resolved after oral antibiotics), catheter obstruction (n = 2), catheter self-removal (n = 2) (re-insertion performed), and nausea (n = 1). When comparing the assessment before and after/during drainage, we found the significantly better global QOL (mean 31.8 vs. 47.8, p < 0.001), improvement in physical (52.6 vs. 64.4, p < 0.001) and emotional functioning (50.7 vs. 65.4, p < 0.001); symptoms were significantly less intense: fatigue (66.7 vs. 50.9, p < 0.001), nausea and vomiting (37.8 vs. 21.4, p < 0.001), pain (53.9 vs. 34.1, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (48.5 vs. 22.3, p < 0.001), insomnia (49.1 vs. 34.3, p < 0.001), appetite loss (56.3 vs. 40.3, p < 0.001), and constipation (31.0 vs. 25.2, p = 0.007), and more patients had no pain on eating (71.3% vs. 82.9%, p = 0.04). Most patients (78%) were satisfied, 83% would recommend the procedure to others, and 90% would choose intervention again. The interim analysis provided data on the safety and improvement of patients' QOL after MA drainage via patient-controlled CVC inserted into the abdominal cavity, thus justifying the continuation of recruitment for the main trial without changes in the protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39969588What 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.