RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Over the last decades, many changes have occurred in oncology with new chemotherapy combinations and more complex application schemes becoming available. Central venous catheters and implantable venous port systems have become widely used and have facilitated the problem of vascular access. However, important complications are associated with permanent central venous catheters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review summarizes evidence on venous port system use published in Medline up to February 2007. Moreover, recent guidelines for the prevention and management of catheter-related infections issued by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American College of Critical Care Medicine, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Oncology are included. RESULTS: Sterile precautions are essential when implanting and accessing port systems. Infections must be treated with adequate antimicrobial therapy. Catheter-related thromboembolic complications were found at a rate of 12-64% in retrospective studies. Five current clinical trials investigated the effect of prophylactic anticoagulation with either low molecular weight heparin or warfarin in cancer patients with central venous devices. On the basis of these results, routine anticoagulation cannot be recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This article reviews the current literature on long-term complications of venous port systems, focusing on infection and thrombosis. In addition, it summarizes the evidence regarding routine maintenance of port systems in follow-up care.
Asunto(s)
Catéteres de Permanencia , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Profilaxis Antibiótica , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos/administración & dosificación , Bacteriemia/epidemiología , Bacteriemia/etiología , Bacteriemia/prevención & control , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efectos adversos , Cateterismo Venoso Central/instrumentación , Cateterismo Venoso Central/métodos , Catéteres de Permanencia/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Contaminación de Equipos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Fungemia/epidemiología , Fungemia/etiología , Fungemia/prevención & control , Humanos , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Tromboembolia/etiología , Tromboembolia/prevención & controlRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term outcome, risk factors, and causes of death in stage I-IIIA endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients treated only with adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy (VB) and to clarify for which subgroups of patients it is safe to omit external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: Out of 224 EC patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy between 1990 and 2002, 138 had VB alone in curative intent (FIGO [2002]: 85%I, 12%II, 3%IIIA; 18 low risk [IA G1-2, IB G1], 103 intermediate risk [IB G2-3, IC G1-2, IIA-B G1-2], 17 high risk [IC G3, IIIA]). After surgery+/-lymphadenectomy, HDR-brachytherapy prescription (in 95.7% of patients) was 3x10 Gy to the surface or 3x5 Gy at 5 mm tissue depths. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 107 months (range 3-185). Three intermediate and 7 high risk-patients relapsed. The 10-year vaginal control was 99.2%, locoregional control was 95.2% (low/intermediate/high risk: 100%/98.9%/68.8%), and disease-free survival (DFS) was 91.7% (100%/96.8%/55.2%). Risk factors for poor DFS were lymphovascular space invasion, > or = 50% myometrial invasion (univariate, p<0.05), pathological FIGO-stage, and grade 3 (uni-/multivariate, p<0.05). Leading causes of deaths (n=41) were cardiovascular disease (29%) and other malignancies (24%) ahead of EC (19.5%). The 10-year overall survival was 68.5% and the disease-specific survival was 92.4%. Thirty-five secondary tumors in 31 patients led to a higher actuarial death rate (10-year 9.9%, 15-year 17.7%) than EC (7.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Restricting adjuvant therapy to VB alone seems to be safe in low and intermediate risk EC and can be recommended. As death rarely relates to early-stage EC, value of adjuvant therapy is probably better reflected by DFS rather than by overall survival.