Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters (PICC) versus totally implantable venous access device (PORT) for chemotherapy administration: a meta-analysis on gynecological cancer patients

Main Article Content

Vito Andrea Capozzi
Luciano Monfardini
Giulio Sozzi
Giulia Armano
Diana Butera
Elisa Scarpelli
Giuseppe Barresi
Alessandro Benegiamo
Roberto Berretta


Gynecological cancer, Meta-analysis., Central venous catheter, PORT, Peripherally inserted central venous catheters


Background and aim: Ninety-four thousand gynecological cancer diagnoses are performed each year in the United States. The majority of these tumors require systemic adjuvant therapy. Sustained venous access was overcome by indwelling long-term central venous catheter (CVC). The best choice of which CVC to use is often arbitrary or dependent on physician confidence. This meta-analysis aims to compare PORT and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) outcomes during adjuvant treatment for gynecological cancer.

Methods: Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement (PRISMA)were used to conduct the meta-analysis.

Results: 1320 patients were included, 794 belonging to the PORT group and 526 to the PICC group. Total complication rates were fewer in the PORT group, p = 0.05. CVC malfunction was less frequent in the PORT group than in the PICC group, p <0.01. Finally, thrombotic events were less expressed in the PORT group than in the PICC group, p = 0.02. No difference was found in operative complication, migration, malposition, extravasation, infection, and complication requiring catheter removal.

Conclusions: PORT had fewer thrombotic complications and fewer malfunction problems than PICC devices. Unless specific contraindications, PORTs can be preferred for systemic treatment in gynecological cancer patients.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 1086 | PDF Downloads 768


1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gynecologic Cancer Incidence, United States—2012–2016. USCS Data Brief, no 11. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2019.
2. Curtin JP, Shapiro F. Adjuvant therapy in gynecologic malignancies. Ovarian, cervical, and endometrial cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1997 Oct;6(4):813-30. PMID: 9309095.
3. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018 Nov;68(6)394-424.
4. Al-Benna S, O’Boyle C, Holley J. Extravasation injuries in adults. ISRN Dermatol. 2013;2013:856541. Published 2013 May 8. doi:10.1155/2013/856541.
5. Cunningham SC, Gallmeier E. Supraclavicular approach for central venous catheterization: “safer, simpler, speedier”. J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Sep;205(3):514-6; author reply 516-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.05.020. PMID: 17765171.
6. Sousa B, Furlanetto J, Hutka M, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Central venous access in oncology: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 5:v152-68. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv296.
7. Marcy PY. Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology. Eur Radiol. 2008 Oct;18(10):2333-44. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0981-2. Epub 2008 May 6. PMID: 18458909.
8. Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A, et al. Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. Int J Lab Hematol. 2007 Aug;29(4):261-78. doi:10.1111/j.1751-553X.2007.00931.x.
9. Cotogni P, Pittiruti M. Focus on peripherally inserted central catheters in critically ill patients. World J Crit Care Med. 2014;3(4):80-94. Published 2014 Nov 4. doi:10.5492/wjccm.v3.i4.80
10. Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access 2020: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology. 2020 Jan;132(1):8-43. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002864. PMID: 31821240.
11. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, et al. Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in
12. Hsu CC, Kwan GN, Evans-Barns H, et al. Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 21;2016(8):CD008942. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008942.pub2
13. Taxbro K, Hammarskjöld F, Thelin B, 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 Anaesth. 2019;122(6):734-741. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.038
14. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Epub 2009 Jul 21. PMID: 19621072; PMCID: PMC2707599.
16. Afsar B, Elsurer R, Covic A, Kanbay M. Vascular access type, health-related quality of life, and depression in hemodialysis patients: a preliminary report. J Vasc Access. 2012 Apr-Jun;13(2):215-20. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000032. PMID: 22139743.
17. Coady K, Ali M, Sidloff D, Kenningham RR, Ahmed S. A comparison of infections and complications in central venous catheters in adults with solid tumours. J Vasc Access. 2015 Jan-Feb;16(1):38-41. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000300. Epub 2014 Sep 1. PMID: 25198809.
18. Madabhavi I, Patel A, Sarkar M, Anand A, Panchal H, Parikh S. A Study of Use of “PORT” Catheter in Patients with Cancer: A Single-Center Experience. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2017 Feb 23;11:1179554917691031. doi: 10.1177/1179554917691031. PMID: 28469510; P
19. Walser EM. Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Aug;35(4):751-64. doi: 10.1007/s00270-011-0271-2. Epub 2011 Sep 16. PMID: 21922348.
20. Pu YL, Li ZS, Zhi XX, et al. Complications and Costs of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Compared With Implantable Port Catheters for Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis. Cancer Nurs. 2020;43(6):455-467. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000742
21. Lefebvre L, Noyon E, Georgescu D, et al. Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for postoperative chemotherapy in early breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of 448 patients. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(3):1397-1403. doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2901-8
22. Gouin-Thibault I, Achkar A, Samama MM. The thrombophilic state in cancer patients. Acta Haematol. 2001;106(1-2):33-42. doi: 10.1159/000046587. PMID: 11549775.
23. Vescia S, Baumgärtner AK, Jacobs VR, et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol. 2008 Jan;19(1):9-15. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm272. Epub 2007 Sep 9. PMID: 17846025.
24. Tamura A, Sone M, Ehara S, et al. Is ultrasound-guided central venous port placement effective to avoid pinch-off syndrome? J Vasc Access. 2014 Jul-Aug;15(4):311-6. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000201. Epub 2014 Jan 27.
25. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America [published correction appears in Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Apr 1;50(7):1079. Dosage error in article text] [published correction appears in Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Feb 1;50(3):457]. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(1):1-45. doi:10.1086/599376

Most read articles by the same author(s)