BackgroundThe requirement of central venous (CV) port implantation is increasing with the increase in the number of cancer patients and advancement in chemotherapy. In our division, medical oncologists have implanted all CV ports to save time and consultation costs to other departments. Recently, upper arm implantation has become the first choice as a safe and comfortable method in our unit. Here we report our experience and discuss the procedure and its potential advantages.MethodsAll CV port implantations (n = 599) performed in our unit from January 2006 to December 2011 were analyzed. Procedural success and complication rates between subclavian and upper arm groups were compared.ResultsBoth groups had similar patient characteristics. Upper arm CV port and subclavian implantations were equivalently successful and safe. Although we only retrospectively analyzed data from a single center, the upper arm group had a significantly lower overall postprocedural complication rate than the subclavian group. No pneumothorax risk, less risk of arterial puncture by ultrasound, feasibility of stopping potential arterial bleeding, and prevention of accidental arterial cannulation by targeting the characteristic solitary basilic vein were the identified advantages of upper arm CV port implantation. In addition to the aforementioned advantages, there is no risk of “pinch-off syndrome,” possibly less patient fear of manipulation, no scars on the neck and chest, easier accessibility, and compatibility with the “peripherally inserted central catheter” technique.ConclusionsUpper arm implantation may benefit clinicians and patients with respect to safety and comfort. We also introduce our methods for upper arm CV port implantation with the videos.

Weight loss and hematogenous metastases are poor prognosis factors in lung cancer patients that can but do not necessarily co‐occur. We retrospectively investigated the clinical association between cachexia, tumor characteristics (such as metastatic burden and mutational status), and treatment in lung cancer patients. The medical records of 394 lung cancer patients from two institutions (Columbia University, USA and Tohoku University, Japan) were reviewed. Information collected included the presence of cachexia, histologic subtype, tumor stage, number of metastases, mutation status, treatment, and survival. Descriptive statistics were performed. Only stage IV patients exhibited >5% weight loss (0.8%, 2.2%, 3.6%, and 5.1%, for stages I to IV; P = 0.0001). Patients with metastases developed cachexia more often than patients without metastases independent of treatment (6.0% and 7.1% weight loss in patients with metastases vs. 2.5% and 2.0% in patients without metastases, before [P = 0.0001] and after [P < 0.0001] treatment, respectively). The change in number of metastatic sites over time correlated with increasing weight loss (5.2%, 10.6%, 13.4%, and 13.4%, for an increase of 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 metastatic sites, from initial diagnosis to the endpoint; P < 0.0001). Patients with cachexia had worse survival than patients without cachexia (hazard ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval, 2.08–4.16; P < 0.0001). Tumors with mutated KRAS were associated with an increased risk of weight loss (11.4% weight loss in patients with mutated KRAS vs. 6.0% in patients with wild‐type KRAS; P = 0.0011). Our findings suggest that the capabilities of lung cancer to metastasize and cause cachexia might be linked intrinsically and are independent of treatments administered. KRAS‐mutated tumors were more commonly associated with cachexia.

Upper arm venipuncture with ultrasound guidance seems the most promising technique to prevent complications of central venous port implantation.