Factors influencing catheter-related infections in the Dutch multicenter study on high-dose chemotherapy followed by peripheral SCT in high-risk breast cancer patients

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Overall survival rates are disappointing for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Autologous transplantation of bone marrow or peripheral stem cells (in which the woman is both donor and recipient) has been considered a promising technique because it permits use of much higher doses of chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (either autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation) with conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov on the 21 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected RCTs, independently extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We combined data using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes were survival rates, toxicity and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs of 5600 women randomised to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. The studies were at low risk of bias in most areas.There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy does not increase the likelihood of overall survival at any stage of follow-up (at three years: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%; at five years: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 0%; at six years: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.43, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42, 1 RCT, 382 women).There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy improves the likelihood of event-free survival at three years (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%) but this effect was no longer apparent at longer duration of follow-up (at five years: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 14%; at six years RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.64, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.45, 1 RCT, 382 women).Treatment-related deaths were much more frequent in the high-dose arm (RR 7.97, 95% CI 3.99 to 15.92, 14 RCTs, 5600 women, I² = 12%, high-quality evidence) and non-fatal morbidity was also more common and more severe in the high-dose group. There was little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of second cancers at four to nine years' median follow-up (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.73, 7 RCTs, 3423 women, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Women in the high-dose group reported significantly worse quality-of-life scores immediately after treatment, but there were few statistically significant differences between the groups by one year.The primary studies were at low risk of bias in most areas, and the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods and rated as high quality for all comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence of increased treatment-related mortality and little or no increase in survival by using high-dose chemotherapy with autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

Patient- and Device-Specific Risk Factors for Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter—Related Bloodstream Infections

Objective.

To determine the patient- and device-specific risk factors for hospital-acquired peripherally inserted central venous catheter–related bloodstream infections (PICC BSIs) in adult patients.

Design.

Nested case-control study.

Setting.

Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a 1,252-bed tertiary care teaching hospital.

Patients.

Adult patients with PICCs placed from January 1, 2006, through July 31, 2008.

Methods.

PICC BSI cases were identified using the National Healthcare Safety Network definition. Uninfected control patients with PICCs in place were randomly selected at a 3: 1 ratio. Patient- and device-related variables were examined using multivariate analysis.

Results.

The overall PICC BSI rate was 3.13 per 1,000 catheter-days. Independent risk factors for PICC BSIs included congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.26–3.17];P= .003), intra-abdominal perforation (OR, 5.66 [95% CI, 1.76–18.19];P= .004),Clostidium difficileinfection (OR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.17–4.33];P= .02), recent chemotherapy (OR, 3.36 [95% CI, 1.15–9.78];P= .03), presence of tracheostomy (OR, 5.88 [95% CI, 2.99–11.55];P< .001), and type of catheter (OR for double lumen, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.15–3.10];P= .01; OR for triple lumen, 2.87 [95% CI, 1.39–5.92];P= .004). Underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29–0.78];P= .03) and admission to surgical (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24–0.79];P= .006) or oncology and orthopedic (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.13–0.99];P= .05) services were less likely to be associated with having a PICC BSI.

Conclusions.

We identified several novel factors related to PICC BSIs. These factors may inform preventive measures.

Infections in patients with hematologic neoplasms and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: neutropenia, humoral, and splenic defects

Infections are common in patients with hematologic neoplasms and following allogeneic hematopoietic transplantation. Neutropenia and defects in adaptive B-cell-mediated immunity and/or lack of splenic function predispose patients to a host of diverse and often serious infections. It is important to recognize that patients who undergo treatment for hematologic neoplasms may have mixed immune defects, and their vulnerability to infection may continue to change, in part as a reflection of the dynamic developments in the practice of oncology. The main obstacle in providing targeted, evidence-based antimicrobial treatment is the unpredictable results of even the new generation of diagnostic assays. A definite diagnosis for most end-organ opportunistic diseases requires tissue samples that are seldom available. Because immune defects may coexist, empirical therapy is directed toward a wide spectrum of pathogens. Real-time information about innate and adaptive immune functions and the role of acute and chronic phase molecules may improve target-specific therapy.