Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial

Moss, J. G. et al. (2021) Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 398(10298), pp. 403-415. (doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00766-2) (PMID:34297997)

[img] Text
237537.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.



Background: Hickman-type tunnelled catheters (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and totally implanted ports (PORTs) are used to deliver systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) via a central vein. We aimed to compare complication rates and costs of the three devices to establish acceptability, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the devices for patients receiving SACT. Methods: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (Cancer and Venous Access [CAVA]) of three central venous access devices: PICCs versus Hickman (non-inferiority; 10% margin); PORTs versus Hickman (superiority; 15% margin); and PORTs versus PICCs (superiority; 15% margin). Adults (aged ≥18 years) receiving SACT (≥12 weeks) for solid or haematological malignancy from 18 oncology units in the UK were included. Four randomisation options were available: Hickman versus PICCs versus PORTs (2:2:1), PICCs versus Hickman (1:1), PORTs versus Hickman (1:1), and PORTs versus PICCs (1:1). Randomisation was done using a minimisation algorithm stratifying by centre, body-mass index, type of cancer, device history, and treatment mode. The primary outcome was complication rate (composite of infection, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, inability to aspirate blood, mechanical failure, and other) assessed until device removal, withdrawal from study, or 1-year follow-up. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN44504648. Findings: Between Nov 8, 2013, and Feb 28, 2018, of 2714 individuals screened for eligibility, 1061 were enrolled and randomly assigned, contributing to the relevant comparison or comparisons (PICC vs Hickman n=424, 212 [50%] on PICC and 212 [50%] on Hickman; PORT vs Hickman n=556, 253 [46%] on PORT and 303 [54%] on Hickman; and PORT vs PICC n=346, 147 [42%] on PORT and 199 [58%] on PICC). Similar complication rates were observed for PICCs (110 [52%] of 212) and Hickman (103 [49%] of 212). Although the observed difference was less than 10%, non-inferiority of PICCs was not confirmed (odds ratio [OR] 1·15 [95% CI 0·78–1·71]) potentially due to inadequate power. PORTs were superior to Hickman with a complication rate of 29% (73 of 253) versus 43% (131 of 303; OR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37–0·77]). PORTs were superior to PICCs with a complication rate of 32% (47 of 147) versus 47% (93 of 199; OR 0·52 [0·33–0·83]). Interpretation: For most patients receiving SACT, PORTs are more effective and safer than both Hickman and PICCs. Our findings suggest that most patients receiving SACT for solid tumours should receive a PORT within the UK National Health Service. Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Item Type:Articles
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Germeni, Dr Evi and McCartney, Miss Elaine and Heggie, Mr Robert and Wu, Professor Olivia and Jones, Dr Brian and Moss, Professor Jonathan and Dixon, Miss Judith and Soulis, Mrs Eileen and Dillon, Miss Susan
Authors: Moss, J. G., Wu, O., Bodenham, A. R., Agarwal, R., Menne, T. F., Jones, B. L., Heggie, R., Hill, S., Dixon-Hughes, J., Soulis, E., Germeni, E., Dillon, S., and McCartney, E.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Cancer Sciences
College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Health
College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Health & Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment
College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Infection & Immunity
College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing
Journal Name:Lancet
ISSN (Online):1474-547X
Published Online:20 July 2021
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd.
First Published:First published in Lancet 398(10298): 403-415
Publisher Policy:Reproduced in accordance with the publisher copyright policy
Related URLs:

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record