Cheryl L. Brunelle

Impact of Ipsilateral Blood Draws, Injections, Blood Pressure Measurements, and Air Travel on the Risk of Lymphedema for Patients Treated for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE The goal of this study was to investigate the association between blood draws, injections, blood pressure readings, trauma, cellulitis in the at-risk arm, and air travel and increases in arm volume in a cohort of patients treated for breast cancer and screened for lymphedema. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between 2005 and 2014, patients undergoing treatment of breast cancer at our institution were screened prospectively for lymphedema. Bilateral arm volume measurements were performed preoperatively and postoperatively using a Perometer. At each measurement, patients reported the number of blood draws, injections, blood pressure measurements, trauma to the at-risk arm(s), and number of flights taken since their last measurement. Arm volume was quantified using the relative volume change and weight-adjusted change formulas. Linear random effects models were used to assess the association between relative arm volume (as a continuous variable) and nontreatment risk factors, as well as clinical characteristics. RESULTS In 3,041 measurements, there was no significant association between relative volume change or weight-adjusted change increase and undergoing one or more blood draws (P = .62), injections (P = .77), number of flights (one or two [P = .77] and three or more [P = .91] v none), or duration of flights (1 to 12 hours [P = .43] and 12 hours or more [P = .54] v none). By multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with increases in arm volume included body mass index ≥ 25 (P = .0236), axillary lymph node dissection (P < .001), regional lymph node irradiation (P = .0364), and cellulitis (P < .001). CONCLUSION This study suggests that although cellulitis increases risk of lymphedema, ipsilateral blood draws, injections, blood pressure readings, and air travel may not be associated with arm volume increases. The results may help to educate clinicians and patients on posttreatment risk, prevention, and management of lymphedema.

Establishing and Sustaining a Prospective Screening Program for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema at the Massachusetts General Hospital: Lessons Learned

There has been an increasing call to prospectively screen patients with breast cancer for the development of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) following their breast cancer treatment. While the components of a prospective screening program have been published, some centers struggle with how to initiate, establish, and sustain a screening program of their own. The intent of this manuscript is to share our experience and struggles in establishing a prospective surveillance program within the infrastructure of our institution. It is our hope that by sharing our history other centers can learn from our mistakes and successes to better design their own prospective screening program to best serve their patient population.

Precautions for breast cancer-related lymphoedema: risk from air travel, ipsilateral arm blood pressure measurements, skin puncture, extreme temperatures, and cellulitis

Precautionary recommendations conveyed to survivors of cancer by health-care practitioners to reduce the risk of breast cancer-related lymphoedema are indispensable aspects of clinical care, yet remain unsubstantiated by high-level scientific evidence. By reviewing the literature, we identified 31 original research articles that examined whether lifestyle-associated risk factors (air travel, ipsilateral arm blood pressure measurements, skin puncture, extreme temperatures, and skin infections-eg, cellulitis) increase the risk of breast cancer-related lymphoedema. Among the few studies that lend support to precautionary guidelines, most provide low-level (levels 3-5) or inconclusive evidence of an association between lymphoedema and these risk factors, and only four level 2 studies show a significant association. Skin infections and previous infection or inflammation on the ipsilateral arm were among the most clearly defined and well established risk factors for lymphoedema. The paucity of high-level evidence and the conflicting nature of the existing literature make it difficult to establish definitive predictive factors for breast cancer-related lymphoedema, which could be a considerable source of patient distress and anxiety. Along with further research into these risk factors, continued discussion regarding modification of the guidelines and adoption of a risk-adjusted approach is needed.

A comprehensive review of bioimpedance spectroscopy as a diagnostic tool for the detection and measurement of breast cancer-related lymphedema.

As treatment for breast cancer improves and the threat of life‐long chronic lymphedema becomes more prevalent, the need for effective screening tools emerges as crucial. This review was conducted using literature beginning in 1992 to analyze primary research testing the accuracy of bioimpedance spectroscopy as a diagnostic and early detection tool for breast cancer‐related lymphedema. We concluded bioimpedance is an accurate diagnostic tool for pre‐existent lymphedema, however, it has not been validated for early detection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:537–542.

Diagnostic Methods, Risk Factors, Prevention, and Management of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: Past, Present, and Future Directions

Purpose of ReviewBreast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic, adverse, and much feared complication of breast cancer treatment, which affects approximately 20% of patients following breast cancer treatment. BCRL has a tremendous impact on breast cancer survivors, including physical impairments and significant psychological consequences. The intent of this review is to discuss recent studies and analyses regarding the risk factors, diagnosis, prevention through early screening and intervention, and management of BCRL.Recent FindingsHighly-evidenced risk factors for BCRL include axillary lymph node dissection, lack of reconstruction, radiation to the lymph nodes, high BMI at diagnosis, weight fluctuations during and after treatment, subclinical edema within and beyond 3 months after surgery, and cellulitis in the at-risk arm. Avoidance of potential risk factors can serve as a method of prevention. Through establishing a screening program by which breast cancer patients are measured pre-operatively and at follow-ups, are objectively assessed through a weight-adjusted analysis, and are clinically assessed for signs and symptoms, BCRL can be tracked accurately and treated effectively. Management of BCRL is done by a trained professional, with research mounting towards the use of compression bandaging as a first line intervention against BCRL. Finally, exercise is safe for breast cancer patients with and without BCRL and does not incite or exacerbate symptoms of BCRL.SummaryRecent research has shed light on BCRL risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and management. We hope that education on these aspects of BCRL will promote an informed, consistent approach and encourage additional research in this field to improve patient outcomes and quality of life in breast cancer survivors.

Hand Edema in Patients at Risk of Breast Cancer–Related Lymphedema: Health Professionals Should Take Notice

Background. There is little research on hand edema in the population at risk for breast cancer‐related lymphedema (BCRL). Objectives. Study aims included reporting potential importance of hand edema (HE) as a risk factor for progression of edema in patients treated for breast cancer at risk for BCRL, reporting risk factors for BCRL, and reporting treatment of HE. Design/Methods. This was a retrospective analysis of 9 patients treated for breast cancer in Massachusetts General Hospitals lymphedema screening program who presented with isolated HE. Limb volumes via perometry, BCRL risk factors, and HE treatment are reported. Results. Edema was mostly isolated to the hand. Three patients had arm edema >5% on perometry; and 2 of these had edema outside the hand on clinical examination. Patients were at high risk of BCRL with an average of 2.9/5 known risk factors. Arm edema progressed to >10% in 2 high‐risk patients. Treatment resulted in an average hand volume reduction of 10.2% via perometry and improvement upon clinical examination. Limitations. The small sample size and lack of validated measures of subjective data were limitations. Conclusions. In this cohort, patients with HE carried significant risk factors for BCRL. Two out of 9 (22%), both carrying ≥4/5 risk factors, progressed to edema >10%. Isolated HE may be a prognostic factor for edema progression in patients treated for breast cancer at risk for BCRL. Further research is warranted.

Association Between Precautionary Behaviors and Breast Cancer–Related Lymphedema in Patients Undergoing Bilateral Surgery

Purpose This study examined the lifestyle and clinical risk factors for lymphedema in a cohort of patients who underwent bilateral breast cancer surgery. Patients and Methods Between 2013 and 2016, 327 patients who underwent bilateral breast cancer surgery were prospectively screened for arm lymphedema as quantified by the weight-adjusted volume change (WAC) formula. Arm perometry and subjective data were collected preoperatively and at regular intervals postoperatively. At the time of each measurement, patients completed a risk assessment survey that reported the number of blood draws, injections, blood pressure readings, trauma to the at-risk arm, and number of flights since the previous measurement. Generalized estimating equations were applied to ascertain the association among arm volume changes, clinical factors, and risk exposures. Results The cohort comprised 327 patients and 654 at-risk arms, with a median postoperative follow-up that ranged from 6.1 to 68.2 months. Of the 654 arms, 83 developed lymphedema, defined as a WAC ≥ 10% relative to baseline. On multivariable analysis, none of the lifestyle risk factors examined through the risk assessment survey were significantly associated with increased WAC. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that having a body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 at the time of breast cancer diagnosis ( P = .0404), having undergone axillary lymph node dissection ( P = .0464), and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy ( P = .0161) were significantly associated with increased arm volume. Conclusion Blood pressure readings, blood draws, injections, and number or duration of flights were not significantly associated with increases in arm volume in this cohort. These findings may help to guide patient education about lymphedema risk reduction strategies for those who undergo bilateral breast cancer surgery.

In response to: Letter to the Editor by Kilbreath et al

MEYHA N. SWAROOP, MS, CHERYL L. BRUNELLE, PT, CLT, MARIA S. ASDOURIAN, BS, HODA E. SAYEGH, BA, MELISSA N. SKOLNY, NP, LAURA SALAMA, MD, AND ALPHONSE G. TAGHIAN, MD, PhD* Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts