Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Aug;13(4):349-54.
doi: 10.1007/s10147-008-0766-2. Epub 2008 Aug 15.

Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer

Affiliations

Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer

Junichiro Kawamura et al. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Venous ports are mandatory for chemotherapy in cancer patients because prolonged infusions are required. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of peripheral arm ports for chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods: A peripheral venous access port was placed in the upper arm in 113 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). All patients received modified FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/l-leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [L-OHP]) 6 or FOLFIRI (5-FU/LV/irinotecan hydrochloride [CPT-11]) regimens at least once via the venous access port. All patients were followed up at least once every 2 weeks.

Results: Puncture of the basilic veins was successfully completed under real-time sonographic guidance or radiographic guidance in all patients. The median operative time was 30 min. The cumulative follow-up period was 29 886 catheter days (range, 9-560 days; mean, 264 days). No procedural complications, such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, arterial puncture, or cardiovascular problems, occurred in our series. A total of nine patients (8.0%) had complications. Port-site infection occurred in six patients (5.3%; 0.20 infections per 1000 catheter-days). One patient (0.9%) had an episode of ultrasound-documented deep vein thrombosis in the ipsilateral upper extremity (0.03/1000 catheter-days). Dislocation or migration of the catheter tip occurred in two patients (0.07/1000 catheter-days). A second port was placed in six patients (5.3%) after removal of the fi rst port.

Conclusion: Peripheral arm ports can be maintained with excellent short-and long-term outcomes. Peripheral arm ports are considered to be a good alternative to central venous ports implanted in the chest in patients with MCRC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Arm port implantation in cancer patients.
    Marcy PY, Figl A, Amoretti N, Ianessi A. Marcy PY, et al. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun;15(3):328-30. doi: 10.1007/s10147-010-0041-1. Epub 2010 Mar 2. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010. PMID: 20195679 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1997 Nov-Dec;8(6):991-5 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 1992 Jul;184(1):149-51 - PubMed
    1. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1998 May-Jun;21(3):230-3 - PubMed
    1. J Surg Oncol. 1996 Jul;62(3):222-5 - PubMed
    1. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002 Feb;13(2 Pt 1):179-84 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources