Two Cases of Colon Cancer Patients Who Were Treated with Cetuximab and Presented with Superior Vena Cava Syndrome

Bala Basak Oven Ustaalioglu^1, , Recep Ustaalioglu MD² and Mehmet Yildirim²

¹Medical Oncology, Haydarpasa Numune Educatio and Research Hospital

²ThoracicSurgery Siyami Ersek Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

Cite this paper

Bala Basak Oven Ustaalioglu, Recep Ustaalioglu MD and Mehmet Yildirim. Two Cases of Colon Cancer Patients Who Were Treated with Cetuximab and Presented with Superior Vena Cava Syndrome. American Journal of Medical Case Reports. 2016; 4(11):361-363. doi: 10.12691/AJMCR-4-11-3

Abstract

Objectives: Venous port catheter has been currently used in chemotherapy especially for colon cancer patients. Venous thrombosis related with venous device is frequently reported but superior vena cava syndrome(svc) with high mortality rate is rarely seen as a port catheter related thrombosis. Cetuximab which has been used in metastatic colon cancer is an anti-EGFR agent has shown to be risk factor for venous thromboembolic events. Patients: Inhere we reported 2 metastatic colon cancer patients who had been treated with chemotherapy combined with cetuximab via venous port catheter. Svc was detected in both of them during therapy with cetuximab. None of them had any co-morbidity or tendency for thrombosis. Cetuximab is thought to be increase thrombosis and may cause the svc syndrome. Conclusion: When metastatic colon cancer patients presented with redness and swelling of face while they receiving cetuximab via venous port catheter, other than allergic reaction, superior vena cava syndrome also should keep in mind.

Keywords

superior vena cava syndrome, port catheter, cetuximab, thrombosis, cancer

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Miroddi M, Sterrantino C, Simmonds M, Caridi L, Calapai G, Phillips RS, Stewart LA. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of severe and life-threatening thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab or panitumumab). Int J Cancer. 2016; 139: 2370-2380.
[2]	Hohl Moinat C, Périard D, Grueber A, Hayoz D, Magnin JL, André P, Kung M, Betticher DC. Predictors of venous thromboembolic events associated with central venous port insertion in cancer patients. J Oncol. 2014; 2014: 743181.
[3]	Elyamany G, Alzahrani AM, Bukhary E. Cancer-associated thrombosis: an overview. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2014; 8: 129-137.
[4]	Ma LI, Liu Y, Wang J, Chang Y, Yu L, Geng C. Totally implantable venous access port systems and associated complications: A single-institution retrospective analysis of 2,996 breast cancer patients. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016; 4: 456-460.
[5]	Aribaş BK, Arda K, Aribaş O, Ciledağ N, Yoloğlu Z, Aktaş E, Seber T, Kavak S, Coşar Y, Kaygusuz H, Tekin E. Comparison of subcutaneous central venous port via jugular and subclavian access in 347 patients at a single center. Exp Ther Med. 2012; 4: 675-680.
[6]	Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, Della Vigna P, Rotmensz N, Radice D, Zampino MG, Fazio N, de Braud F, Andreoni B, Goldhirsch A. Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2009; 20: 935-940.
[7]	Lyman GH, Bohlke K, Falanga A; American Society of Clinical Oncology Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Oncol Pract. 2015; 11: e442-4.
[8]	Winder T, Lenz HJ. Vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor signaling pathways as therapeutic targets for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010; 138: 2163-2176.
[9]	Capdevila J, Saura C, Macarulla T, Casado E, Ramos FJ, Tabernero J. Monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007; 33 Suppl 2: S24-34.
[10]	Rizvi AZ, Kalra M, Bjarnason H, Bower TC, Schleck C, Gloviczki P. Benign superior vena cava syndrome: stenting is now the first line of treatment. J Vasc Surg. 2008; 47: 372-380.
[11]	Venturini E, Becuzzi L, Magni L. Catheter-induced thrombosis of the superior vena cava. Case Rep Vasc Med. 2012; 2012: 469619.
[12]	Lee AY, Levine MN, Butler G, Webb C, Costantini L, Gu C, Julian JA. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis in adult patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 1404-1408.
[13]	Yukisawa S, Fujiwara Y, Yamamoto Y, Ueno T, Matsueda K, Kohno A, Suenaga M. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis related to central venous port systems implanted in cancer patients. Br J Radiol. 2010; 83: 850-853.
[14]	Guijarro Escribano JF, Antón RF, Colmenarejo Rubio A, Sáenz Cascos L, Sainz González F, Alguacil Rodríguez R. Superior vena cava syndrome with central venous catheter for chemotherapy treated successfully with fibrinolysis. Clin Transl Oncol. 2007; 9: 198-200.
[15]	Dağdelen S. Superior vena cava syndrome arising from subclavian vein port catheter implantation and paraneoplastic syndrome. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2009; 37: 125-127.
[16]	Hasskarl J, Köberich S, Frydrychowicz A, Illerhaus G, Waller CF. Complete caval thrombosis secondary to an implanted venous port--a case study. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008; 105: 18-21.
[17]	Petrelli F, Cabiddu M, Borgonovo K, Barni S. Risk of venous and arterial thromboembolic events associated with anti-EGFR agents: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2012; 23: 1672-1679.