This study aims to evaluate the satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cancer patients with chest ports and to understand their experiences and challenges.
Methods:
A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted. We surveyed 618 cancer patients from 17 hospitals using the Quality of Life Assessment, Venous Device-Port questionnaire from October 2022 to October 2023. Concurrently, 14 patients from a tertiary hospital were interviewed in May 2023.
Results:
Cancer patients reported a high level of satisfaction with chest port with an average score of 8.25 out of 10. However, over half had concerns such as concerns about port damage, blockage, and infection, and attempted to cover the port with clothing. The most common practical concern was interference with sports or exercise. Thirteen themes emerged from the interviews, divided into sense of benefit (convenience in daily life, high sense of security, reduction in repeated punctures and related pain, and decreased burden of frequent hospital visits), trust issues and emotional reactions at port implantation (trust and passive decision-making, fear and anxiety about surgical procedures, and resistance and passive acceptance), and negative perceptions after port implantation (safety concerns, cosmetic concerns, interference with daily activities, physical discomfort, inconvenience of accessing medical resources, patient uncertainty and need for port care information).
Conclusion:
Combining quantitative and qualitative findings provides a deeper understanding of chest port-related HRQoL in cancer patients. Although they reported a high level of satisfaction, they face significant concerns that negatively impact their HRQOL. By addressing their concerns, we can significantly improve their experiences.
Implications for clinical practice:
Enhanced patient education, emotional support, and innovative techniques are essential for improving overall satisfaction and quality of life of cancer patients with chest ports.
BrayFLaversanneMSungH, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin2024; 74(3): 229–263.
2.
KnebelPFischerLHuesingJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial of a modified Seldinger technique for open central venous cannulation for implantable access devices. Br J Surg2009; 96(2): 159–165.
3.
WangPSohKLYingY, et al. Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res2022; 213: 34–42.
4.
CapozziVAMonfardiniLSozziG, et al. Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters (PICC) versus totally implantable venous access device (PORT) for chemotherapy administration: a meta-analysis on gynecological cancer patients. Acta Biomed2021; 92(5): e2021257.
5.
MossJGWuOBodenhamAR, et al. Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2021; 398(10298): 403–415.
6.
ClatotFFontanillesMLefebvreL, et al. Randomised phase II trial evaluating the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer2020; 126: 116–124.
7.
ShaoGZhouXZhangS, et al. Cost-utility analysis of centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) vs. peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the oncology chemotherapy. Front Public Health2022; 10: 942175.
8.
HeggieRJaiswalNMcCartneyE, et al. Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: an economic evaluation. Value Health2024; 27(1): 7–14.
9.
BorstCGde KruifATvan DamFS, et al. Totally implantable venous access ports—the patients’ point of view. A quality control study. Cancer Nurs1992; 15(5): 378–381.
10.
NiederhuberJEEnsmingerWGyvesJW, et al. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery1982; 92(4): 706–712.
11.
SongHJLiZ.Application and nursing of implantable intravenous infusion port. Chin J Nurs2004; 39(10): 785–786.
12.
PatrickDLEricksonP.Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.
13.
MegariK.Quality of life in chronic disease patients. Health Psychol Res2013; 1(3): e27.
14.
BurbridgeBGoyalK.Quality-of-life assessment: arm TIVAD versus chest TIVAD. J Vasc Access2016; 17(6): 527–534.
15.
BurbridgeBLimHDwernychukL, et al. Comparison of the quality of life of patients with breast or colon cancer with an arm vein port (TIVAD) versus a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Curr Oncol2021; 28(2): 1495–1506.
16.
MinichsdorferCFürederTMährB, et al. A cross-sectional study of patients’ satisfaction with totally implanted access ports. Clin J Oncol Nurs2016; 20(2): 175–180.
17.
YagiTSakamotoTNakaiK, et al. A questionnaire-based assessment of the anxiety, satisfaction and discomfort experienced by Japanese cancer patients during the use of central venous ports. Intern Med2016; 55(17): 2393–2399.
18.
TaxbroKHammarskjöldFThelinB, et al. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth2019; 122(6): 734–741.
19.
IvzikuDGualandiRPesceF, et al. Adult oncology patients’ experiences of living with a central venous catheter: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Support Care Cancer2022; 30(5): 3773–3791.
20.
BiffiROrsiFPozziS, et al. No impact of central venous insertion site on oncology patients’ quality of life and psychological distress. A randomized three-arm trial. Support Care Cancer2011; 19(10): 1573–1580.
21.
LiuYXuLJiangM, et al. Chinesization of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port, and its reliability and validity tests for patients with breast cancer. J Vasc Access2020; 21(6): 983–989.
22.
BraunVClarkeV.Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006; 3(2): 77–101.
23.
RydellHHugeYErikssonV, et al. Central venous access and the risk for thromboembolic events in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Life (Basel)2022; 12(8): 1198.
24.
LinLLiWChenC, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol2023; 13: 1228092.
25.
SunYWuX.Complications of implanted port catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Adv Clin Exp Med2023; 32(5): 523–532.
26.
IgnatovAHoffmanOSmithB, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol2009; 35(3): 241–246.
27.
ChrisanthopoulouPIconomouGAssimakopoulosK, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with solid tumors receiving implantable venous access ports for chemotherapy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oncol Nurs2023; 67: 102445.
28.
BertoglioSAnnettaMGBresciaF, et al. A multicenter retrospective study on 4480 implanted PICC-ports: a GAVeCeLT project. J Vasc Access. Epub ahead of print 17 January 2022. DOI: 10.1177/11297298211067683.
29.
Shanghai Cooperation Group on Central Venous Access; Expert Committee on Vascular Access, Committee of Experts on Focused Diagnosis and Treatment of Solid Tumors, Shanghai Anti-Cancer Association. Consensus of Shanghai experts on totally implantable access port (2019). J Intervent Radiol2019; 28(12): 1123–1128.
30.
LuAHuMQiX, et al. A retrospective cohort study of implantable venous access port-related and peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in patients with hematological malignancies in China. SAGE Open Med2024; 12: 20503121241257190.
31.
PuYLLiZSZhiXX, et al. Complications and costs of peripherally inserted central venous catheters compared with implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Cancer Nurs2020; 43(6): 455–467.
32.
ChangYLSae-LimCLinSL, et al. Scarless totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: surgical technique, preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-reported outcome in 125 breast cancer patients. Surg Oncol2024; 53: 102048.
33.
BertoglioSCafieroFMeszarosP, et al. PICC-PORT totally implantable vascular access device in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. J Vasc Access2020; 21(4): 460–466.
34.
PinelliFBarbaniFDefilippoB, et al. Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port. Breast Cancer2024; 31(5): 945–954.
35.
JohanssonEEngervallPBjörvellH, et al. Patients’ perceptions of having a central venous catheter or a totally implantable subcutaneous port system-results from a randomised study in acute leukaemia. Support Care Cancer2009; 17(2): 137–143.
36.
NagelSNTeichgräberUKKauscheS, et al. Satisfaction and quality of life: a survey-based assessment in patients with a totally implantable venous port system. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)2012; 21(2): 197–204.
37.
LiYCaiYGanX, et al. Application and comparison of different implanted ports in malignant tumor patients. World J Surg Oncol2016; 14(1): 251.
38.
LiGZhangYMaH, et al. Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res2019; 11: 6099–6112.
39.
GoltzJPPetritschBKirchnerJ, et al. Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients’ point of view. Support Care Cancer2013; 21(2): 505–510.
40.
KreisHLoehbergCRLuxMP, et al. Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol2007; 33(1): 39–43.
41.
XieYLiuLJiaoJ, et al. Health education and nursing needs of breast cancer patients with totally implantable venous access ports at different stages. Altern Ther Health Med2023; 29(2): 22–28.
