The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Adult Patients With Cancer (MAGIC-ONC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Safe and reliable venous access is critical for high-quality cancer care. Patients with both solid and hematologic cancers require vascular access devices (VADs) for systemic chemotherapies and for supportive treatments, including blood products, antimicrobials, antiemetics, and fluids. However, VADs are associated with serious complications, including bloodstream infection and venous thromboembolism. Evidence-based guidance could maximize benefits and reduce risks in the selection and management of VADs in patients with cancer. The authors convened a 9-member international multidisciplinary panel and used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop recommendations for VAD selection, insertion, and management in patients with cancer. A literature review informed the development of clinical scenarios, which were rated by the panel for appropriateness based on cancer type, treatment indication, urgency, comorbidities, and anticipated duration of use. Of 1422 scenarios, 502 (35%) were rated as appropriate, 400 (28%) were rated as neutral/uncertain, and 520 (37%) were rated as inappropriate. Appropriateness of VAD selection varied by type of cancer, treatment urgency, and planned dwell time. For patients with acute hematologic cancers requiring urgent chemotherapy, placement of a double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) was rated as appropriate, regardless of treatment intensity or infusate characteristics. For patients with malignant solid tumors, a single-lumen tunneled CVC or implanted port was rated as appropriate for delivering chemotherapy, regardless of treatment intensity, urgency, or duration. In patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, coordination of care with a nephrologist to ensure vein preservation in the context of cancer prognosis was recommended. By developing comprehensive, evidence-informed expert recommendations, the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Adult Patients With Cancer (MAGIC-ONC) aims to improve clinical care, reduce complications, support quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of vascular access for patients with cancer.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7326/annals-25-02523
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Adult Patients With Cancer (MAGIC-ONC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Sarah B. White, Vineet Chopra, Knut Taxbro, Jocelyn Hill et al.
1 citations
Annals of Internal Medicine
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
2.52
article

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Adult Patients With Cancer (MAGIC-ONC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Sarah B. White, Vineet Chopra, Knut Taxbro, Jocelyn Hill, Andrew Kin, Jennifer K. Horowitz, Jonathan Moss, Scott A. Flanders, Evan Alexandrou, Ajay Major, Mini Kamboj, Steven J. Bernstein, David Paje, Zoe McQuilten, Elizabeth McLaughlin, Lama Hsaiky
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Safe and reliable venous access is critical for high-quality cancer care. Patients with both solid and hematologic cancers require vascular access devices (VADs) for systemic chemotherapies and for supportive treatments, including blood products, antimicrobials, antiemetics, and fluids. However, VADs are associated with serious complications, including bloodstream infection and venous thromboembolism. Evidence-based guidance could maximize benefits and reduce risks in the selection and management of VADs in patients with cancer. The authors convened a 9-member international multidisciplinary panel and used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop recommendations for VAD selection, insertion, and management in patients with cancer. A literature review informed the development of clinical scenarios, which were rated by the panel for appropriateness based on cancer type, treatment indication, urgency, comorbidities, and anticipated duration of use. Of 1422 scenarios, 502 (35%) were rated as appropriate, 400 (28%) were rated as neutral/uncertain, and 520 (37%) were rated as inappropriate. Appropriateness of VAD selection varied by type of cancer, treatment urgency, and planned dwell time. For patients with acute hematologic cancers requiring urgent chemotherapy, placement of a double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) was rated as appropriate, regardless of treatment intensity or infusate characteristics. For patients with malignant solid tumors, a single-lumen tunneled CVC or implanted port was rated as appropriate for delivering chemotherapy, regardless of treatment intensity, urgency, or duration. In patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, coordination of care with a nephrologist to ensure vein preservation in the context of cancer prognosis was recommended. By developing comprehensive, evidence-informed expert recommendations, the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Adult Patients With Cancer (MAGIC-ONC) aims to improve clinical care, reduce complications, support quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of vascular access for patients with cancer.

Annals of Internal MedicineVol. 178(12_Supplement)
University of Colorado Hospital (US), Providence Health Care (CA), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US), Medical College of Wisconsin (US), Liverpool Hospital (AU), Wollongong Hospital (AU), The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (US), Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research centre (AU), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (US), Michigan Medicine (US), VA Center for Clinical Management Research (US), Monash Health (AU), University of Michigan–Dearborn (US), Ryhov Hospital Jönköping (SE), Linköping University Hospital (SE), Alfred Health (AU), University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US), Monash University (AU), University of Glasgow (GB), University of Colorado Denver (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
2.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.