RESUMEN
Highlights: Sarcopenia is frequent in patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) or radiochemotherapy (RTCT) for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Sarcopenia is associated with poor disease-free survival and overall survival outcomes. Sarcopenia is not associated with a higher rate of treatment-related toxicity. Background: Sarcopenia occurs frequently with the diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to assess the impact of sarcopenia on survival among HNSCC patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) or radiochemotherapy (RTCT). Methods: Patients treated between 2014 and 2018 by RT or RTCT with curative intent were prospectively included (NCT02900963). Optimal nutritional support follow-up, including weekly consultation with a dietician and an oncologist and daily weight monitoring, was performed. Sarcopenia was determined by measuring the skeletal muscles at the L3 vertebra on the planning CT scan for radiotherapy. For each treatment group (RT or RTCT), we assessed the prognostic value of sarcopenia for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) and its impact on treatment-related toxicity. Results: Two hundred forty-three HNSCC patients were included: 116 were treated by RT and 127 were treated by RTCT. Before radiotherapy, eight (3.3%) patients were considered malnourished according to albumin, whereas 88 (36.7%) patients were sarcopenic. Overall, sarcopenia was associated with OS and DFS in a multivariate analysis (HR 1.9 [1.1-3.25] and 1.7 [1.06-2.71], respectively). It was similar for patients treated with RT (HR 2.49 [1.26-4.9] for DFS and 2.24 [1.03-4.86] for OS), whereas for patients treated with RTCT sarcopenia was significantly associated with OS and DFS in univariate analysis only. Sarcopenia was not related to higher treatment-related toxicity. Conclusions: Pretherapeutic sarcopenia remains frequent and predicts OS and DFS for non-frail patients treated with curative intent and adequate nutritional support.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implanted port catheters (PORTs) are used for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) administration in patients with early breast cancer (EBC). We aimed to compare the safety between PICCs and PORTs in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This monocentric phase II randomised trial (NCT02095743) included patients with EBC who were eligible for ACT. Patients with curative anticoagulation therapy were excluded. The primary objective was to identify which device has a lower probability of catheter-related significant adverse events (CR-SAEs) within the 35 weeks after device implantation. The secondary objective was to evaluate quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: From February 2014 to May 2018, 256 patients were included, and 253 (99%) were analysed. Overall, 31 patients (12.2%) experienced CR-SAEs, which mainly included thromboembolic events. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the probability that a CR-SAE would occur was 7.8% (10 events) with PORTs versus 16.6% (21 events) with PICCs (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.2 [1.03-4.62], P = 0.036). In a per-protocol analysis, PICCs were also associated with a higher risk of CR-SAEs than PORTs (HR = 2.82 [1.26-6.25], P = 0.007). Regarding the secondary objectives, if there was no difference in QoL between the arms, then significantly more discomfort was reported among patients with PICCs than among patients with PORTs (P = 0.002 after implantation and P < 0.001 at mid-treatment or at the end of treatment). CONCLUSIONS: CR-SAEs in patients with EBC are frequent but rarely impact the ACT process. Compared with PORTs, PICCs are associated with a significantly higher risk of CR-SAEs and more discomfort. PORTs should be preferred for ACT administration in patients with EBC.
