ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a comparative cross-sectional study of CICC ports and PICC-ports.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality of life (QoL) should be considered when selecting a venous access device for chemotherapy, in addition to clinical indications. This study aimed to describe and compare QoL in women with breast cancer who received a totally implantable vascular device, either a chest port (CICC port) or a peripherally inserted port (PICC-port).
methodsA single-centre comparative cross-sectional study was conducted including 113 women undergoing neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. The QoL was assessed using a questionnaire previously employed in other studies, and a comparative analysis was performed using appropriate parametric or non-parametric tests in accordance with the STROBE guidelines. No multivariable adjustment was performed for baseline differences.
resultsOverall satisfaction was high in both groups, with no statistically significant differences in cosmetic concerns or emotional burden. Patients in the CICC port group reported lower pain at insertion (median NRS: 1 vs. 2; p = 0.0099), whereas PICC-port users more frequently reported hygiene difficulties (p = 0.0375). These comparative findings are, however, constrained by relevant baseline differences: women in the PICC-port group were younger and had a lower Body Mass Index, and chemotherapy setting, differed significantly between cohorts.
conclusionBoth devices were associated with high patient satisfaction and general acceptance. Minor differences related to insertion pain and hygiene were observed, but their interpretation is limited by unadjusted baseline heterogeneity. Device selection should therefore be grounded primarily in clinical indications and individual patient preferences, while future prospective, multicentre, and adequately adjusted studies are needed to clarify comparative QoL effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41849008What 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.