OBJECTIVES: In our regional cancer center, the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) has become an alternative to the port catheter (PC) in adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2012, a retrospective study comparing the two devices was performed, and published. A total of 68 device-related complications were observed: 25 in PC arm (290 patients) and 43 in PICC arm (158 patients). This study showed that the PICC was a risk factor for complication. The purpose of the present study was a medico-economic evaluation between these two devices.

METHODS: This study was a cost-effectiveness evaluation. Data were collected retrospectively from the cohort of the initial clinical study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of patients who benefited from the entire chemotherapy protocol at the end of the time horizon (150 days post-exposure). The perspective was the Health Insurance. Costs for each patient were valued from the patient’s medical file. Costs of hospital care and community care were taken into account in the total cost calculation.

RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS: Since value for money is a major issue, the medico-economic argument plays an important role in decisions. From our evaluation the port catheter is the most cost-effective device.