Melissa N. Skolny

The Impact of Radiation Therapy on the Risk of Lymphedema After Treatment for Breast Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE Lymphedema after breast cancer treatment can be an irreversible condition with a negative impact on quality of life. The goal of this study was to identify radiation therapy-related risk factors for lymphedema. METHODS AND MATERIALS From 2005 to 2012, we prospectively performed arm volume measurements on 1476 breast cancer patients at our institution using a Perometer. Treating each breast individually, 1099 of 1501 patients (73%) received radiation therapy. Arm measurements were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. Lymphedema was defined as ≥10% arm volume increase occurring >3 months postoperatively. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate risk factors for lymphedema. RESULTS At a median follow-up time of 25.4 months (range, 3.4-82.6 months), the 2-year cumulative incidence of lymphedema was 6.8%. Cumulative incidence by radiation therapy type was as follows: 3.0% no radiation therapy, 3.1% breast or chest wall alone, 21.9% supraclavicular (SC), and 21.1% SC and posterior axillary boost (PAB). On multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for regional lymph node radiation (RLNR) (SC ± PAB) was 1.7 (P=.025) compared with breast/chest wall radiation alone. There was no difference in lymphedema risk between SC and SC + PAB (P=.96). Other independent risk factors included early postoperative swelling (P<.0001), higher body mass index (P<.0001), greater number of lymph nodes dissected (P=.018), and axillary lymph node dissection (P=.0001). CONCLUSIONS In a large cohort of breast cancer patients prospectively screened for lymphedema, RLNR significantly increased the risk of lymphedema compared with breast/chest wall radiation alone. When considering use of RLNR, clinicians should weigh the potential benefit of RLNR for control of disease against the increased risk of lymphedema.

Lymphedema following breast cancer treatment and impact on quality of life: A review

Lymphedema resulting from breast cancer treatment is a chronic condition which can significantly compromise quality of life. We sought to review various aspects of breast-cancer related lymphedema including measurement techniques, definitions, risk factors, and specifically, impact on physical, psychological, and emotional well-being of women treated for breast cancer. For the purpose of this review, we performed a literature search using PubMed for articles on lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment published since 1997. While improvements in breast cancer therapy have contributed to a decrease in the incidence of lymphedema, the overall negative impact the condition has on patients and survivors has remained unchanged. The development of lymphedema results in physical impairments including compromised function, diminished strength, fatigue, and pain in the affected arm. Affected women may have decreased self-confidence resulting from a distorted body image. Negative emotions reported by women with lymphedema include anxiety, frustration, sadness, anger, fear, and increased self-consciousness. Lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment remains a significant quality of life issue, with known consequences related to a womans physical, psychological, and emotional well-being.

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.

Lymphedema following treatment for breast cancer: A new approach to an old problem

Lymphedema following treatment for breast cancer can be an irreversible condition with a profound negative impact on quality of life. The lack of consensus regarding standard definitions of clinically significant lymphedema and optimal methods of measurement and quantification are unresolved problems. Inconsistencies persist regarding the appropriate timing of intervention and what forms of treatment should be the standard of care. There are reports that early detection and intervention can prevent progression, however,the Level 1 evidence to support this hypothesis has yet to be generated. To assess these controversies, we propose the implementation of a screening program to detect early lymphedema in conjunction with a randomized, prospective trial designed to generate Level 1 evidence regarding the efficacy of early intervention and appropriate treatment strategies. Collaboration among institutions that manage breast cancer patients is essential to establish a standardized approach to lymphedema and to establish guidelines for best practice.

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.

Immediate Implant Reconstruction Is Associated With a Reduced Risk of Lymphedema Compared to Mastectomy Alone: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Objective:We sought to determine the risk of lymphedema associated with immediate breast reconstruction compared to mastectomy alone. Background:Immediate breast reconstruction is increasingly performed at the time of mastectomy. Few studies have examined whether breast reconstruction impacts development of lymphedema. Methods:A total of 616 patients with breast cancer who underwent 891 mastectomies between 2005 and 2013 were prospectively screened for lymphedema at our institution, with 22.2 months’ median follow-up. Mastectomies were categorized as immediate implant, immediate autologous, or no reconstruction. Arm measurements were performed preoperatively and during postoperative follow-up using a Perometer. Lymphedema was defined as 10% or more arm volume increase compared to preoperative. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to determine lymphedema rates and risk factors. Results:Of 891 mastectomies, 65% (580/891) had immediate implant, 11% (101/891) immediate autologous, and 24% (210/891) no reconstruction. The two-year cumulative incidence of lymphedema was as follows: 4.08% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.59–6.41%] implant, 9.89% (95% CI: 4.98–19.1%) autologous, and 26.7% (95% CI: 20.4–34.4%) no reconstruction. By multivariate analysis, immediate implant [hazards ratio (HR): 0.352, P < 0.0001] but not autologous (HR: 0.706, P = 0.2151) reconstruction was associated with a significantly reduced risk of lymphedema compared to no reconstruction. Axillary lymph node dissection (P < 0.0001), higher body mass index (P < 0.0001), and greater number of nodes dissected (P = 0.0324) were associated with increased lymphedema risk. Conclusions:This prospective study suggests that in patients for whom implant-based reconstruction is available, immediate implant reconstruction does not increase the risk of lymphedema compared to mastectomy alone.

Factors Associated With Fear of Lymphedema After Treatment for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To identify demographic and treatment characteristics associated with postoperative fear of lymphedema. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING Outpatient breast clinic at a comprehensive cancer center in the northeastern United States. SAMPLE 324 patients undergoing treatment for unilateral breast cancer. METHODS Women with breast cancer were prospectively screened for lymphedema (relative volume change of 10% or greater) preoperatively and every three to eight months postoperatively via Perometer arm volume measurements. Fear was simultaneously evaluated via questionnaire. Multivariate linear mixed-effects regression models were used to identify factors associated with mean postoperative fear score and to plot the average fear score over time within axillary surgery type subgroups. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES Postoperative fear of lymphedema. FINDINGS Higher preoperative fear score (p < 0.0001), younger age at diagnosis (p = 0.0038), and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) (p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with higher mean postoperative fear score. The average fear score changed nonlinearly over time (p < 0.0001), decreasing from preoperative to 24 months postoperative and leveling thereafter. CONCLUSIONS Preoperative fear, younger age at diagnosis, and ALND may contribute to postoperative fear of lymphedema. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING Individualized education that begins preoperatively, continues throughout treatment, and is re-emphasized 24 months postoperatively may help minimize fear of lymphedema.

Screening for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: The Need for Standardization

This commentary explores the challenges surrounding the development of a standard definition of lymphedema and method of quantification, proposes solutions, and calls for a collaborative effort among providers who care for patients with breast cancer.