Abstract PS9-49: Comparison of the quality of life (QOL) of patients with an arm vein port (TIVAD) versus a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Venous access is a crucial element in systemic therapy delivery. PICCs are usually more easily and quickly inserted. It remains unclear whether cancer patients prefer a port to a PICC. Our study aimed to assess cancer patients’ satisfaction with their venous access device and to compare the QOL of subjects with a PICC to those with a port. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, EORTC QLQ-C30 and a locally developed QOL survey, designed to assess satisfaction with venous access devices, were administered to breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer patients up to four times over a 1-year period. Mixed effects models were used controlling for other covariates to assess changes on mean scores at different time points. Results: A total of 101 patients were recruited, 50 (BC, 29) in PICC and 51 (BC, 35) in port group. Survey response rates for months 1 and 3 were, 72% and 48%, respectively. Overall, no significant differences were noted between the two groups in relation to EORTC QOL constructs. Mixed effect model showed that patients with a PICC had significantly lower pain score estimate compared to patients with a port (β= -1.98, 95% CI: -0.92 - -3.05, p<0.001). Conversely, patients with a port had a psychosocial score estimate significantly higher than patients with a PICC (β= 2.18, 95% CI: 0.83 - 3.53, p=0.002). As survey time variable was not significant, there was no change in the mean pain or psychological scores for both devices at 3 months. Results for the QLC-30 survey did not reveal any statistically significant changes in mean scores for the different constructs between the surveys conducted at baseline and 3 months for the devices investigated. At 3 months 66.7% patients with a PICC vs. 33.3% with a port felt they had changed the way they dressed due to their device (OR=4.0, 95% CI:1.2-13.3, p=0.02). 88.2% patients with PICC vs.18.3% with port reported difficulties with showering, bathing or performing personal hygiene activities due to their device (OR=18.3, 95% CI: 3.5-97.1, p<0.0001). 41.7% patients with a PICC vs. 12.5% with a port experienced comments from people about their device (OR=5.0, 95% CI: 1.2-21.5, p=0.02). 45.8% patients with a PICC worried that their device may become infected vs. 8.3% with a port (OR= 9.3, 95% CI: 1.8-48.7, p=0.003). No significant differences were noted between the two group regarding sports, exercise, social activities, or the degree of discomfort in between treatments. The 3-month mean satisfaction score between two groups showed no difference (25.0 ±6.6 vs 25.2 ±5.9, p=0.87). Complications rates were 38% in PICC vs. 41% with a port (p>0.24). Overall, 8% patients with a PICC vs. 12% with a port developed DVT (p=NS). Conclusions: Although patients with a port experience more pain, it had a smaller negative impact on psychosocial scores than the PICC. No significant difference in device satisfaction or complications rates was observed between the two devices. Citation Format: Shahid Ahmed, Brent Burbridge, Lynn Dwernychuk, Ha Le, Tehmina Asif, Hyun Lim. Comparison of the quality of life (QOL) of patients with an arm vein port (TIVAD) versus a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS9-49.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".