1982
DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19821215)50:12<2731::aid-cncr2820501206>3.0.co;2-p
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The delivery of cancer chemotherapy by constant venous infusion ambulatory management of venous access and portable pump

Abstract: Fifty chemotherapy trials with 5‐fluorouracil;31 mitomycin C;9 vinblastine;3 Adriamycin;5 and cis‐platinol2 were initiated employing constant (24‐hour) intravenous infusion for protracted periods (14–94 days). The use of the tunneled subclavian line for greater than 2200 patient days was associated with minimal complications and no instances of thrombosis or infection were observed. The use of an ambulatory infusion pump was associated with a pump efficiency of greater than 85% in 38 of 39 evaluable trials. On… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

1984
1984
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We employ the hybrid model to investigate the effectiveness of two commonly used dosing strategies, i.e., constant and periodic dosing, in controlling the growth of avascular invasive solid tumors. Our model robustly reproduces the observation that constant dosing is generally more effective in suppressing primary tumor growth compared to periodic dosing, due to the resulting continuous high drug concentration [58][59][60][61] . However, the suppression of primary tumor progression does not necessarily lead to a suppression of invasive cell migration, which results in complex invasion branches emitting from the primary tumor [62][63][64][65] .…”
supporting
confidence: 57%
“…We employ the hybrid model to investigate the effectiveness of two commonly used dosing strategies, i.e., constant and periodic dosing, in controlling the growth of avascular invasive solid tumors. Our model robustly reproduces the observation that constant dosing is generally more effective in suppressing primary tumor growth compared to periodic dosing, due to the resulting continuous high drug concentration [58][59][60][61] . However, the suppression of primary tumor progression does not necessarily lead to a suppression of invasive cell migration, which results in complex invasion branches emitting from the primary tumor [62][63][64][65] .…”
supporting
confidence: 57%