Outcomes associated with different intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery systems in advanced ovarian carcinoma: A single institution's experience

Joseph J. Ivy, Melissa A Geller, Serena M. Pierson, Amy L. Jonson, Peter A Argenta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Despite increasing use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy the optimal delivery strategy and regimen remain undetermined. Catheter-related complications have been reported in 3-34% of cases across a number of platforms and port styles, but few data compare different catheters directly. We sought to evaluate the complication rate of two separate intraperitoneal chemotherapy port delivery systems used within a single practice. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent port placement in our practice (two surgical centers) from January, 2006 through October, 2008. Data extracted included: demographics, medical co-morbidities, port type, timing of placement, intraoperative procedures, reasons for discontinuation of IP chemotherapy, and number of completed cycles. Results: We identified 85 patients who had intraperitoneal ports placed. Four patients were excluded from this analysis: 2 declined chemotherapy and 2 were treated at other institutions and follow-up data was insufficient. Fifty-two (64%) of the 81 patients analyzed had a fenestrated port placed, and 29 (36%) had single lumen ports. In 67 cases (83%) the port was placed at the time of initial cytoreductive surgery. In 14 patients (17%) it was placed as a secondary event. The groups were well matched for age, stage, BMI, and medical co-morbidities though the group with single lumen catheters had more antecedent surgeries. We observed no significant difference between patients with single lumen or fenestrated ports with regard to: number of intraperitoneal treatments, catheter-related complications, hematologic outcomes, and rates of discontinuation. Conclusions: A low rate of catheter-related complications is observed with both systems. The majority of discontinuations were due to hematologic complications and did not appear to be intrinsic to catheter choice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)420-423
Number of pages4
JournalGynecologic Oncology
Volume114
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2009

Fingerprint

Catheters
Carcinoma
Drug Therapy
Morbidity
Medical Records
Demography
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Catheter
  • Chemotherapy
  • Complication
  • Intraperitoneal
  • Ovarian cancer
  • Port

Cite this

Outcomes associated with different intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery systems in advanced ovarian carcinoma : A single institution's experience. / Ivy, Joseph J.; Geller, Melissa A; Pierson, Serena M.; Jonson, Amy L.; Argenta, Peter A.

In: Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 114, No. 3, 01.09.2009, p. 420-423.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{da6e9049f4804c2e980a2820a170d6b4,
title = "Outcomes associated with different intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery systems in advanced ovarian carcinoma: A single institution's experience",
abstract = "Background: Despite increasing use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy the optimal delivery strategy and regimen remain undetermined. Catheter-related complications have been reported in 3-34{\%} of cases across a number of platforms and port styles, but few data compare different catheters directly. We sought to evaluate the complication rate of two separate intraperitoneal chemotherapy port delivery systems used within a single practice. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent port placement in our practice (two surgical centers) from January, 2006 through October, 2008. Data extracted included: demographics, medical co-morbidities, port type, timing of placement, intraoperative procedures, reasons for discontinuation of IP chemotherapy, and number of completed cycles. Results: We identified 85 patients who had intraperitoneal ports placed. Four patients were excluded from this analysis: 2 declined chemotherapy and 2 were treated at other institutions and follow-up data was insufficient. Fifty-two (64{\%}) of the 81 patients analyzed had a fenestrated port placed, and 29 (36{\%}) had single lumen ports. In 67 cases (83{\%}) the port was placed at the time of initial cytoreductive surgery. In 14 patients (17{\%}) it was placed as a secondary event. The groups were well matched for age, stage, BMI, and medical co-morbidities though the group with single lumen catheters had more antecedent surgeries. We observed no significant difference between patients with single lumen or fenestrated ports with regard to: number of intraperitoneal treatments, catheter-related complications, hematologic outcomes, and rates of discontinuation. Conclusions: A low rate of catheter-related complications is observed with both systems. The majority of discontinuations were due to hematologic complications and did not appear to be intrinsic to catheter choice.",
keywords = "Catheter, Chemotherapy, Complication, Intraperitoneal, Ovarian cancer, Port",
author = "Ivy, {Joseph J.} and Geller, {Melissa A} and Pierson, {Serena M.} and Jonson, {Amy L.} and Argenta, {Peter A}",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.036",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "114",
pages = "420--423",
journal = "Gynecologic Oncology",
issn = "0090-8258",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes associated with different intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery systems in advanced ovarian carcinoma

T2 - A single institution's experience

AU - Ivy, Joseph J.

AU - Geller, Melissa A

AU - Pierson, Serena M.

AU - Jonson, Amy L.

AU - Argenta, Peter A

PY - 2009/9/1

Y1 - 2009/9/1

N2 - Background: Despite increasing use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy the optimal delivery strategy and regimen remain undetermined. Catheter-related complications have been reported in 3-34% of cases across a number of platforms and port styles, but few data compare different catheters directly. We sought to evaluate the complication rate of two separate intraperitoneal chemotherapy port delivery systems used within a single practice. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent port placement in our practice (two surgical centers) from January, 2006 through October, 2008. Data extracted included: demographics, medical co-morbidities, port type, timing of placement, intraoperative procedures, reasons for discontinuation of IP chemotherapy, and number of completed cycles. Results: We identified 85 patients who had intraperitoneal ports placed. Four patients were excluded from this analysis: 2 declined chemotherapy and 2 were treated at other institutions and follow-up data was insufficient. Fifty-two (64%) of the 81 patients analyzed had a fenestrated port placed, and 29 (36%) had single lumen ports. In 67 cases (83%) the port was placed at the time of initial cytoreductive surgery. In 14 patients (17%) it was placed as a secondary event. The groups were well matched for age, stage, BMI, and medical co-morbidities though the group with single lumen catheters had more antecedent surgeries. We observed no significant difference between patients with single lumen or fenestrated ports with regard to: number of intraperitoneal treatments, catheter-related complications, hematologic outcomes, and rates of discontinuation. Conclusions: A low rate of catheter-related complications is observed with both systems. The majority of discontinuations were due to hematologic complications and did not appear to be intrinsic to catheter choice.

AB - Background: Despite increasing use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy the optimal delivery strategy and regimen remain undetermined. Catheter-related complications have been reported in 3-34% of cases across a number of platforms and port styles, but few data compare different catheters directly. We sought to evaluate the complication rate of two separate intraperitoneal chemotherapy port delivery systems used within a single practice. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent port placement in our practice (two surgical centers) from January, 2006 through October, 2008. Data extracted included: demographics, medical co-morbidities, port type, timing of placement, intraoperative procedures, reasons for discontinuation of IP chemotherapy, and number of completed cycles. Results: We identified 85 patients who had intraperitoneal ports placed. Four patients were excluded from this analysis: 2 declined chemotherapy and 2 were treated at other institutions and follow-up data was insufficient. Fifty-two (64%) of the 81 patients analyzed had a fenestrated port placed, and 29 (36%) had single lumen ports. In 67 cases (83%) the port was placed at the time of initial cytoreductive surgery. In 14 patients (17%) it was placed as a secondary event. The groups were well matched for age, stage, BMI, and medical co-morbidities though the group with single lumen catheters had more antecedent surgeries. We observed no significant difference between patients with single lumen or fenestrated ports with regard to: number of intraperitoneal treatments, catheter-related complications, hematologic outcomes, and rates of discontinuation. Conclusions: A low rate of catheter-related complications is observed with both systems. The majority of discontinuations were due to hematologic complications and did not appear to be intrinsic to catheter choice.

KW - Catheter

KW - Chemotherapy

KW - Complication

KW - Intraperitoneal

KW - Ovarian cancer

KW - Port

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67651146339&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67651146339&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.036

DO - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.036

M3 - Article

C2 - 19560189

AN - SCOPUS:67651146339

VL - 114

SP - 420

EP - 423

JO - Gynecologic Oncology

JF - Gynecologic Oncology

SN - 0090-8258

IS - 3

ER -