RESUMEN
Hypoxic areas are typically resistant to treatment. However, the fluorine-18-fluoroazomycin-arabinoside (FAZA) and fluorine 18 misonidazole (FMISO) tracers have never been compared in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study compares the capability of 18F-FAZA PET/CT with that of 18F-FMISO PET/CT for detecting hypoxic tumour regions in early and locally advanced NSCLC patients. We prospectively evaluated patients who underwent preoperative PET scans before surgery for localised NSCLC (i.e., fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET, FMISO-PET, and FAZA-PET). The PET data of the three tracers were compared with each other and then compared to immunohistochemical analysis (GLUT-1, CAIX, LDH-5, and HIF1-Alpha) after tumour resection. Overall, 19 patients with a mean age of 68.2 ± 8 years were included. There were 18 lesions with significant uptake (i.e., SUVmax >1.4) for the F-MISO and 17 for FAZA. The mean SUVmax was 3 (±1.4) with a mean volume of 25.8 cc (±25.8) for FMISO and 2.2 (±0.7) with a mean volume of 13.06 cc (±13.76) for FAZA. The SUVmax of F-MISO was greater than that of FAZA (p = 0.0003). The SUVmax of F-MISO shows a good correlation with that of FAZA at 0.86 (0.66-0.94). Immunohistochemical results are not correlated to hypoxia PET regardless of the staining. The two tracers show a good correlation with hypoxia, with FMISO being superior to FAZA. FMISO, therefore, remains the reference tracer for defining hypoxic volumes.
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.