5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Factors Associated With Lymphedema in Women With Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Axillary Dissection

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cohort study examines factors associated with lymphedema after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and axillary lymph node dissection in women with node-positive breast cancer. What factors are associated with breast cancer–related lymphedema after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and axillary dissection? In this cohort study of 486 patients with breast cancer, increasing body mass index and neoadjuvant chemotherapy duration of 144 days or longer were associated with lymphedema symptoms, neoadjuvant chemotherapy duration of 144 days or longer was associated with a 20% limb volume increase, and removal of 30 nodes or more and higher number of positive nodes were associated with a 10% limb volume increase. The findings suggest that patients with longer duration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or obesity have higher lymphedema risk and may benefit from enhanced prospective lymphedema surveillance. Most lymphedema studies include a heterogeneous population and focus on patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. To examine factors associated with lymphedema after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and axillary lymph node dissection in women with node-positive breast cancer. This cohort study included data from 701 women 18 years or older with cT0-T4N1-2M0 breast cancer with documented axillary nodal metastasis at diagnosis who were enrolled in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1071 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology) trial, which took place from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012. Data analysis was performed from January 11, 2018, to November 9, 2018. All participants received NAC, breast operation, and axillary lymph node dissection. Participants underwent prospective arm measurements and symptom assessment after NAC completion and at 6-month intervals to 36 months postoperatively. Factors associated with lymphedema were defined as self-reported arm heaviness or swelling (lymphedema symptoms) or an arm volume increase of 10% or more (V10) or 20% or more (V20). A total of 486 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [10.8] years) were included in this study. Median follow-up for the 3 measures was 2.2 to 3.0 years. Cumulative lymphedema incidence at 3 years was 37.8% (95% CI, 33.1%-43.2%) for lymphedema symptoms, 58.4% (95% CI, 53.2%-64.1%) for V10, and 36.9% (95% CI, 31.9%-42.6%) for V20. Increasing body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) and NAC for 144 days or longer (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01-2.17) were associated with lymphedema symptoms. The V20 incidence was higher among patients who received NAC for 144 days or longer (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.19-2.68). The V10 incidence was highest in patients with 30 nodes or more removed (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.15-2.52) and increased with number of positive nodes (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06). On multivariable analysis, obesity was significantly associated with lymphedema symptoms (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), and NAC length was significantly associated with V20 (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.62). In this study, longer NAC duration and obesity were associated with increased lymphedema incidence, suggesting that patients in these groups may benefit from enhanced prospective lymphedema surveillance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The risk of developing arm lymphedema among breast cancer survivors: a meta-analysis of treatment factors.

          As more women survive breast cancer, long-term complications that affect quality of life, such as lymphedema of the arm, gain greater importance. Numerous studies have attempted to identify treatment and prognostic factors for arm lymphedema, yet the magnitude of these associations remains inconsistent. A PubMed search was conducted through January 2008 to locate articles on lymphedema and treatment factors after breast cancer diagnosis. Random-effect models were used to estimate the pooled risk ratio. The authors identified 98 independent studies that reported at least one risk factor of interest. The risk ratio (RR) of arm lymphedema was increased after mastectomy when compared with lumpectomy [RR = 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-1.76], axillary dissection compared with no axillary dissection (RR = 3.47; 95% CI 2.34-5.15), axillary dissection compared with sentinel node biopsy (RR = 3.07; 95% CI 2.20-4.29), radiation therapy (RR = 1.92; 95% CI 1.61-2.28), and positive axillary nodes (RR = 1.54; 95% CI 1.32-1.80). These associations held when studies using self-reported lymphedema were excluded. Mastectomy, extent of axillary dissection, radiation therapy, and presence of positive nodes increased risk of developing arm lymphedema after breast cancer. These factors likely reflected lymph node removal, which most surgeons consider to be the largest risk factor for lymphedema. Future studies should consider examining sentinel node biopsy versus no dissection with a long follow-up time post surgery to see if there is a benefit of decreased lymphedema compared with no dissection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of four diagnostic criteria for lymphedema in a post-breast cancer population.

            Breast cancer survivors are at life-time risk of developing lymphedema (LE). The goal of this research was to describe LE incidence over time among women treated for breast cancer. Limb volume changes (LVC) were evaluated by two measurement methods, circumferences and perometry, among 118 participants followed preoperative to 12 months postdiagnosis. Four diagnostic criteria were used: 200 mL perometry LVC; 10% perometry LVC; 2 cm circumferential increase; and report of heaviness or swelling, either "now" or "in the past year." Using 200 mL, the estimated LE rate was 24% (95% CI = 17%-32%) at 6 months, and 42% (31%-53%) at 1 year. Using 10% LVC, the estimated LE rate was 8% (2%-13%) at 6 months, and 21% (12%-30%) at 1 year. Using 2 cm, the estimated LE rate was 46% (36%-56%) at 6 months, and 70% (60%-79%) at 1 year. Based on reported symptoms of heaviness or swelling, the estimated LE rate was 19% (11%-26%) at 6 months, and 40% (30-59%) at 1 year. In the absence of a gold standard, we can only say that the different LE definitions are not equivalent, but cannot say which is "best". From this data, it appears that 10% LVC corresponds to a more conservative definition, whereas the 2 cm difference corresponds to a more liberal definition. These preliminary findings also document the importance of baseline (preoperative) anthropometric and symptom data and monitoring of changes over time. Further investigation of LE occurrence over an extended time period is warranted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Breast cancer-related lymphedema: comparing direct costs of a prospective surveillance model and a traditional model of care.

              Secondary prevention involves monitoring and screening to prevent negative sequelae from chronic diseases such as cancer. Breast cancer treatment sequelae, such as lymphedema, may occur early or late and often negatively affect function. Secondary prevention through prospective physical therapy surveillance aids in early identification and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Early intervention may reduce the need for intensive rehabilitation and may be cost saving. This perspective article compares a prospective surveillance model with a traditional model of impairment-based care and examines direct treatment costs associated with each program. Intervention and supply costs were estimated based on the Medicare 2009 physician fee schedule for 2 groups: (1) a prospective surveillance model group (PSM group) and (2) a traditional model group (TM group). The PSM group comprised all women with breast cancer who were receiving interval prospective surveillance, assuming that one third would develop early-stage BCRL. The prospective surveillance model includes the cost of screening all women plus the cost of intervention for early-stage BCRL. The TM group comprised women referred for BCRL treatment using a traditional model of referral based on late-stage lymphedema. The traditional model cost includes the direct cost of treating patients with advanced-stage lymphedema. The cost to manage early-stage BCRL per patient per year using a prospective surveillance model is $636.19. The cost to manage late-stage BCRL per patient per year using a traditional model is $3,124.92. The prospective surveillance model is emerging as the standard of care in breast cancer treatment and is a potential cost-saving mechanism for BCRL treatment. Further analysis of indirect costs and utility is necessary to assess cost-effectiveness. A shift in the paradigm of physical therapy toward a prospective surveillance model is warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Surgery
                JAMA Surg
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6254
                September 01 2019
                September 01 2019
                : 154
                : 9
                : 800
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, Columbia
                [2 ]Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
                [3 ]Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
                [4 ]Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                Article
                10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1742
                6647005
                31314062
                dd48da9c-008f-41e5-9464-1aeb85c316b9
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article