{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0313460356484327, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011677934849416103, 'mean_word_length': 5.359375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters (PICC) versus totally implantable venous access device (PORT) for chemotherapy administration: a meta-analysis on gynecological cancer patients.

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.