Cargando…

Complications and risk factors for complications of implanted subcutaneous ports for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis

OBJECTIVE: Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy through subcutaneous port is an effective treatment for gastric cancer (GC) patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The objective of this study is to assess the port complications and risk factors for complications in GC patients with PM. METHODS: In re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Zhongyin, Li, Chen, Liu, Wentao, Zheng, Yanan, Zhu, Zhenglun, Hua, Zichen, Ni, Zhentian, Lu, Sheng, Yan, Min, Yan, Chao, Zhu, Zhenggang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7491546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32963462
http://dx.doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.04.07
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy through subcutaneous port is an effective treatment for gastric cancer (GC) patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The objective of this study is to assess the port complications and risk factors for complications in GC patients with PM. METHODS: In retrospective screening of 301 patients with subcutaneous ports implantation, 249 GC patients with PM who received IP chemotherapy were screened out for analysis. Port complications and risk factors for complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 249 analyzed patients, 57 (22.9%) experienced port complications. Subcutaneous liquid accumulation (42.1%) and infection (28.1%) were the main complications, and other complications included port rotation (14.1%), wound dehiscence (12.3%), inflow obstruction (1.7%) and subcutaneous metastasis (1.7%). The median interval between port implantation and occurrence of complications was 3.0 months. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status [odds ratio (OR), 1.74; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.12−2.69], albumin (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.96−6.86), implantation procedure optimization (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18−0.61) and implantation groups (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20−0.69) were independent risk factors for port complications (P<0.05). ECOG performance status was the only factor that related to the grades of port complications (P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Port complications in GC patients who received IP chemotherapy are manageable. ECOG performance status, albumin, implantation procedure and implantation group are independent risk factors for port complications in GC patients with PM.