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

Clinical Approach to Cardiovascular Toxicity of Oral Antineoplastic Agents: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Precision medicine has ushered in a new era of targeted treatments for numerous malignancies, leading to improvements in overall survival. Unlike traditional chemotherapy, many molecular targeted antineoplastic agents are available in oral formulation, leading to enhanced patient convenience and a perception of reduced risk of adverse effects. Although oral antineoplastic agents are generally well-tolerated, cardiovascular toxicities are being reported with increasing frequency in part due to U.S. Food and Drug Administration and manufacturer recommended cardiac monitoring. Monitoring strategies have focused on left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension, and QT prolongation/arrhythmias. Given the rapid pace of development and availability of new oral antineoplastic agents, the purpose of this review is to provide clinicians with an up-to-date practical approach to monitoring and management of cardiovascular toxicities with the aim of improving overall outcomes for patients with cancer.

Ipsilateral Intravenous Catheter Placement in Breast Cancer Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

There is a continued perception that intravenous line (IV) placement is contraindicated in the arm ipsilateral to prior breast cancer surgery to avoid breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the risk for development of BCRL in ipsilateral arm IV placement compared to contralateral arm IV placement to prior breast cancer surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review, via our Integrated Clinical Systems and Epic Electronic Heath Record of IV placement for anesthesia and surgery in patients with a prior history of breast cancer surgery with or without axillary lymph node dissection. Complication rates were compared for IVs placed in the ipsilateral and contralateral arms. We identified 3724 patients undergoing 7896 IV placements between January 1, 2015, and May 5, 2018, with a prior history of breast cancer surgery via their index anesthesia and surgical procedures.

RESULTS

The median time from breast cancer surgery to IV placement was 1.5 years (range, 1 day to 17.8 years). Of 2743 IVs placed in the arm contralateral to prior breast cancer surgery, 2 had a complication, corresponding to an incidence of 7.3 per 10,000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-26.3 per 10,000). Of 5153 IVs placed in the arm ipsilateral to prior breast cancer surgery, 2 IVs had a complication, for an incidence of 3.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.5-14.0 per 10,000). The frequency of complications was not found to differ significantly between the groups (P = .91), and the 95% CI for the risk difference (ipsilateral minus contralateral) was -23 to +8 complications per 10,000. The complication rate is similar when only the first IV placed following breast cancer surgery is considered (overall 5.4 per 10,000 [95% CI, 0.7-19.4] per 10,000; contralateral 7.0 [95% CI, 0.2-39.0] per 10,000, ipsilateral 4.4 [95% CI, 0.1-24.2] per 10,000; P = 1.00; 95% CI for risk difference [ipsilateral minus contralateral], -41 to +22 per 10,000).

CONCLUSIONS

We found very few complications in patients who had an IV placed for surgery following a previous breast cancer surgery and no complications in those patients with IV placement ipsilateral with axillary node dissection. Avoidance of IV placement in the arm ipsilateral to breast cancer surgery is not necessary.

Breast cancer-related upper limb lymphoedema: an overview

Breast cancer-related lymphoedema can be commonly encountered within a community nurse's role. The severity of lymphoedema can range considerably, from those who are considered 'at risk' due to breast cancer treatment, to individuals with highly complex oedema from advanced disease. This article provides an overview of breast cancer-related lymphoedema, including the risk factors for developing lymphoedema and the impact lymphoedema has physically, psychologically and socially. The treatments for lymphoedema, including clinical practical advice and skills, are presented to support ongoing personal development. A collaborative approach between community nurses and lymphoedema clinics is recommended to ensure that patients receive the best care possible.

Prevention of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema

Tremendous progress has been made over the past several decades in the treatment of breast cancer. Mortality and recurrence rates continue to decline. Our ability to tailor patient- and tumor-specific treatments has rapidly advanced. The vast majority of our patients can safely have breast conservation. Unfortunately, for many patients, survivorship is burdened by ongoing quality-of-life issues. Most breast cancer patients are asymptomatic at presentation, and the onus is on us to preserve this. Surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy can result in long-term toxicities that can be amplified with multimodality approaches. We must strive to apply minimally effective therapies rather than a maximally tolerated approach. Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a particularly dreaded chronic complication. This review strives to give the reader a better understanding of BCRL and shed light on wisely choosing an integration of treatment modalities that minimizes BCRL risk. Key literature on emerging concepts is highlighted.

Development and validation of a nomogram to predict the risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema among Chinese breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a major long-term complication for post-surgery breast cancer survivors. Although several risk factors have been identified, lifestyle characteristics have been neglected in previous studies. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a nomogram for estimating this population's risk of developing lymphedema, taking into consideration their demographic, clinical, and personal lifestyle behaviors.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, we collected data from 775 post-operative breast cancer survivors who had attended a follow-up session in the recent 10 years (primary cohort). Lymphedema was assessed using the Norman telephone questionnaire, self-reported by patients. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for lymphedema, including demographic, clinical, and lifestyle-related factors. A nomogram was constructed based on those factors and was validated using a separate group of 314 breast cancer patients (validation cohort).

RESULTS

The factors independently associated with lymphedema were higher body mass index (BMI), modified radical mastectomy (MRM), postsurgical infection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, exercise of the affected arm, and the active participation in physical activity (P<0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) values of the primary and the validation cohorts were 0.721 (95% confidence interval: 0.685-0.756) and 0.702 (95% confidence interval: 0.646-0.759), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BCRL risk factors include MRM, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and higher BMI, while the active physical activity behavior of patients appears to be a factor against lymphedema. The nomogram incorporating the patients' clinical and lifestyle factors might be useful for predicting lymphedema in breast cancer survivors.

Longitudinal impact of postmastectomy radiotherapy on arm lymphedema in patients with breast cancer: An analysis of serial changes in arm volume measured by infrared optoelectronic volumetry

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study was conducted to evaluate the longitudinal impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) on persistent severe lymphedema (PSL) using arm volume measurements by an infrared optoelectronic volumetry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of the patients who underwent mastectomy between 2008 and 2016, we included 330 patients with secondary arm lymphedema. Percentage of excessive volume (PEV) of the arm were serially assessed using an optoelectronic volumetry 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months after the lymphedema diagnosis (T_{lymh_Dx}). We defined PSL as 2 or more episodes of PEV ≥ 20%. Risk factors for PSL were evaluated using stepwise regression analyses.

RESULTS

Patients who received PMRT (n = 202, 61.2%) were more likely to have larger extent of axillary node dissection (AND), and frequent stage II/III lymphedema at T_{lymh_Dx} than those who did not receive PMRT (p < 0.001). With a median follow-up of 72.5 months, PSL occurred in 71 (21.5%) patients. Patients with PSL were more frequently treated with AND of ≥ 20 nodes without reconstruction, had advanced lymphedema stage and higher PEV at T_{lymh_Dx}, and more frequent events of cellulitis compared to those without PSL. The risk of developing PSL was significantly associated with PMRT with regional node irradiation (RNI), AND of ≥20 nodes, lymphedema stage, and PEV at T_{lymh_Dx}, cellulitis, and compliance with physical therapy.

CONCLUSION

PMRT, especially RNI, was associated with a consistent increase in PEV in patients with arm lymphedema. Therefore, timely physical therapy is necessary for this patient population.

Identifying Risk Factors for Anthracycline Chemotherapy-induced Phlebitis in Women with Breast Cancer: An Observational Study

AIMS

Anthracycline chemotherapy administered via a peripheral cannula results in severe anthracycline chemotherapy-induced phlebitis (ACIP) in about 20-30% of patients. Administering chemotherapy via a central venous catheter (CVC) prevents ACIP. However, CVCs are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis and sepsis. Our aim was to identify risk factors associated with severe ACIP and to provide evidence about the individual risk of developing symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective observational study of 263 women with breast cancer receiving peripheral administration of anthracycline chemotherapy at a UK cancer centre was conducted between May 2016 and January 2018. Data were collected at baseline and every 3 weeks following each chemotherapy treatment, using both healthcare professional- and participant-reported symptom assessments.

RESULTS

After three cycles of chemotherapy, 27% of participants experienced severe ACIP. Factors associated with symptom severity were identified as: arm used for chemotherapy administration, epirubicin dose, age, pre-existing hypertension, comorbidity, ethnic group and pain during chemotherapy administration. The sequence of arm used for chemotherapy administration was the single most significant factor (P < 0.001). When alternating arms were used no other risk factor was influential. Where alternating arms were not used, younger age and higher dose were associated with higher-grade symptoms, with age being more influential than dose. The cumulative effect of increasing symptom severity with repeated cycles was also identified (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that a CVC is not routinely required for women with breast cancer who have not undergone an axillary node clearance and receive chemotherapy in alternate arms. The need for a CVC for women who are planned to receive all anthracycline chemotherapy cycles in the same arm should be assessed in the light of peripheral venous access assessment and the key risk factors of age, dose and number of cycles.

Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with upper extremity lymphedema may result in transient or permanent lymphedema worsening

INTRODUCTION

Upper extremity lymphedema can complicate mastectomy, lymph node dissection, and radiation. The purpose of this study is to present the outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty in patients with lymphedema.

METHODS

The 19 shoulders with a shoulder arthroplasty and lymphedema on the surgical side (6 anatomic, 12 reverse, 1 hemiarthroplasty) were followed for four years (1-10 years). There were 2 males and 17 females; average age was 67.8 (48-86) years. Breast carcinoma was the most common reason for lymphedema (75%). A dedicated lymphedema questionnaire could be completed for 14 shoulders.

RESULTS

Pain improved from moderate or severe preoperatively to no or mild in 18 shoulders. Motion improved in elevation (55° preoperatively, 107° at last follow-up), external rotation (14°, 43°), and internal rotation (sacrum, L5). Complications included an acromion stress fracture with a deep infection (1), deep infection (1), superficial infection (1), and glenoid loosening (1). Lymphedema worsened in nine cases, but worsening was permanent in only four. Currently, lymphedema treatment is being performed by 93% of survey respondents. No patients reported lymphangitis or lymphangiosarcoma.

CONCLUSION

Shoulder arthroplasty for an upper extremity with lymphedema provides substantial improvements in pain and motion; however, infection is a concerning complication. Fifty percent of the patients will experience worsening of their lymphedema and in 20% worsening may be permanent.

Uncomplicated Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in Chronic Ipsilateral Upper Extremity Lymphedema: A Case Report

CASE

A 69-year-old woman with chronic upper extremity lymphedema secondary to bilateral mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer 10 years before presented to the clinic with a massive rotator cuff tear. Her shoulder pain and dysfunction persisted despite nonoperative treatment. She underwent left shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) and biceps tenotomy. Arm, forearm, and wrist circumference measurements were obtained, preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and 1-week and 2-weeks postoperatively. No permanent increase in extremity circumference measurements was observed.

CONCLUSION

This case suggests that it is possible to perform an arthroscopic RCR in a patient with chronic upper extremity lymphedema without creating further morbidity.

Development and Validation of a Risk Model for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 1 in 5 patients with breast cancer who undergo axillary lymph node dissection will develop lymphedema. To appropriately triage and monitor these patients for timely diagnosis and treatment, robust risk models are required.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic value of mammographic breast density in estimating lymphedema severity.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prognostic study collected data from July 16, 2018, to March 3, 2020, from the electronic health records of patients of the Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Participants included women who had completed curative treatment for a first diagnosis of breast cancer and who were referred to the program. Also included were a sample of patients in the general breast oncology population who were receiving follow-up care at the center during the same period but who were not referred to the program. All patients attended follow-up appointments at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from January 1, 2016, to May 1, 2018. The cohort was randomly split 2:1 to group patients into a training cohort and a validation cohort.

EXPOSURES

Participant demographic and clinical characteristics included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), medical history, cancer characteristics, and cancer treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Spearman correlation coefficient between measured and predicted volume of lymphedema was calculated. Area under the curve (AUC) values were generated for predicting the occurrence of at least mild lymphedema (volume, >200 mL) and severe lymphedema (volume, >500 mL) at the time of initial lymphedema diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 373 female patients (median [interquartile range] age, 52.3 [45.9-60.1] years) were eligible for this analysis. Multivariate linear regression identified 3 patient factors (age, BMI, and mammographic breast density), 1 cancer factor (number of pathological lymph nodes), and 1 treatment factor (axillary lymph node dissection) as independent prognostic variables. In validation testing, Spearman correlation revealed a statistically significant moderate correlation (coefficient, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.56; P < .001) between measured volume and predicted volume of lymphedema. The AUC values were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60-0.83) for predicting the occurrence of mild lymphedema and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.93) for severe lymphedema.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This prognostic study found that patients with low breast density appeared to be at a higher risk of developing severe lymphedema. The finding suggests that by combining breast density with established risk factors a multivariate linear regression model could be used to predict the development of lymphedema and provide volumetric estimates of lymphedema severity in patients with breast cancer.

A randomized study to prevent lymphedema in women treated for breast cancer: CALGB 70305 (Alliance)

BACKGROUND

Lymphedema affects many women who are treated for breast cancer. We examined the effectiveness of an education-only (EO) versus education plus sleeve compression/exercise intervention (lymphedema education and prevention [LEAP]) on lymphedema incidence and range of motion (ROM) in a group-randomized trial across 38 cooperative group sites.

METHODS

The treating institution was randomly assigned to either EO or LEAP by a study statistician. All patients at a treating institution participated in the same intervention (EO or LEAP) to minimize contamination bias. Participants completed surveys, arm volume measurements, and self-reported ROM assessments before surgery and at 12 and 18 months after surgery. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in limb volume at any time post-surgery up to 18 months after surgery or diagnosis by a health provider. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare lymphedema-free rates between groups, stratified by lymph node surgery type. Self-reported ROM differences were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 554 participants (56% LEAP) were included in the analyses. At 18 months, lymphedema-free rates were 58% (EO) versus 55% (LEAP) (P = .37). ROM for both arms was greater in LEAP versus EO at 12 months; by 18 months, most women reported full ROM, regardless of group. In LEAP, only one-third wore a sleeve ≥75% of the time; 50% performed lymphedema exercises at least weekly.

CONCLUSION

Lymphedema incidence did not differ by intervention group at 18 months. Poor adherence in the LEAP group may have contributed. However, physical therapy may speed recovery of ROM. Further research is needed to effectively reduce the incidence and severity of lymphedema in patients who have breast cancer.

Health-related quality of life outcomes for the LEAP study-CALGB 70305 (Alliance): A lymphedema prevention intervention trial for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Lymphedema is an adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that causes swelling and pain in the arm and hand. We tested 2 lymphedema prevention interventions and their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a group-randomized trial at 38 cooperative group sites within the United States.

METHODS

Patients were recruited before breast surgery. Sites were randomly assigned to education-only (EO) lymphedema prevention or education plus exercise and physical therapy (LEAP). Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in arm volume at any time from baseline to 18 months postsurgery. HRQOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast plus 4 lymphedema items (FACT-B+4). Longitudinal mixed model regression analysis, adjusting for key demographic and clinical variables, examined participants' HRQOL by intervention group and lymphedema status.

RESULTS

A total of 547 patients (56% LEAP) were enrolled and completed HRQOL assessments. The results revealed no differences between the interventions in preventing lymphedema (P = .37) or HRQOL (FACT-B+4 total score; P = .8777). At 18 months, the presence of lymphedema was associated with HRQOL at borderline significance (P = .0825). However, African American patients reported greater lymphedema symptoms (P = .0002) and better emotional functioning (P = .0335) than patients of other races or ethnicities. Lower HRQOL during the intervention was associated with younger age (P ≤ .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >0 (P = .0002), ≥1 positive lymph nodes (P = .0009), having no education beyond high school (P < .0001), having undergone chemotherapy (P = .0242), and having had only axillary node dissection or sentinel node biopsy versus both (P = .0007).

CONCLUSION

The tested interventions did not differ in preventing lymphedema or in HRQOL outcomes. African American women reported greater HRQOL impacts due to lymphedema symptoms than women of other races or ethnicities.

Lymphedema Information and Prevention Practices of Women After Breast Cancer Surgery

AIM

This study was carried out to determine women's knowledge about lymphedema precautions and their practice status. The sample of this descriptive and correlationally designed study included 107 women who underwent surgery.

METHOD

This descriptive study's data were collected using a questionnaire form developed by the researcher. The data were structured on a 3-point Likert-type scale. The one-way analysis of variance, correlations, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were used in the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Three-quarters of the women knew that they should do arm exercises, keep the arm above the heart level while resting, and that blood pressure should not be measured, and jewelry not be worn. However, it was found that the percentage of women who did not know that the arm circumference should be measured at regular intervals or how to evaluate the arm circumference measurements and what to do in case of an injury was the same. It was determined that the precautions that the majority of women took in measuring lymphedema consisted of not measuring blood pressure, not wearing tight jewelry, and wearing an appropriate bra.

CONCLUSION

It is thought that patients should be informed about the development of lymphedema after breast cancer surgery because their compliance with taking the precautions will be important in reducing the incidence, degree, and effects of lymphedema.

Time to rethink vascular access in patients with breast cancer

Breast cancer management is a rapidly evolving field. Diagnosis and treatment options have changed dramatically over the years, as have options for vascular access devices used to administer therapies. We now need to critically rethink vascular access device options for our breast cancer patients.

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Canadian women. Although BC incidence continues to rise, the overall mortality rate in Canada is the lowest it has been for 70 years. The five-year net survival is 87%, and 83% of women are alive at 10 years. New oral therapies, shorter dose-dense treatments, and decreased use of anthracycline-base regimens are reducing the need for central venous access devices during acute treatment phases. However, these survivors go on to develop other health issues requiring routine venipuncture and insertion of vascular access devices.

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic complication that has no cure and no proven prevention strategies. Approximately 21% of breast cancer survivors are at risk of developing BCRL. Of those patients who do develop BCRL, 70% do so within two years of surgery, 90% within three years, and another one percent per year thereafter. The literature supports axillary lymph node dissection, mastectomy, administration of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and obesity, as risk factors for the development of BCRL. However, 40% of patients who develop BCRL have no identifiable risk factors. Broader risk reduction strategies developed are not evidence based, the most commonly cited being avoidance of needle sticks. Large cohort studies have found no significant association between blood draws and intravenous infusion in the surgical arm with the development of BCRL. Recommendations that effectively eliminate vascular access on the surgical side for the patient's entire lifetime are neither necessary nor realistic.

Vascular access specialists can provide leadership by developing standardized, evidence-informed recommendations for safe vascular access and infusion practices for this patient population.

Intra-articular Injections for Musculoskeletal Pain in a Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

The objective of this study is to describe the individuals that undergo intra-articular injections for musculoskeletal pain in a cancer rehabilitation clinic, as well as the safety of those procedures.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective cross-sectional study from July 2017 to May 2018.

Results

We included 157 individuals in the study. Participants underwent a total of 546 injections, with a median of two injections per individuals. Osteoarthritis was the most common indication for injections (82.1%). Most injections were guided by ultrasound (62.2%). There were six AEs in our study: four procedure-related, none serious.

Conclusions

Intra-articular injections were safe in the short-term in this population.

Lymphedema in survivors of breast cancer

The tremendous improvement of survival in patients with breast cancer can be attributed to several treatment strategies, but these strategies also lead to the occurrence of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BRCL is regularly associated with factors such as axillary lymph node dissection and local lymph node radiotherapy and manifests as an increase of >10% in the volume of affected limbs. Being overweight or having obesity (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), an excessive number of positive lymph nodes (>8) and capsular invasion by a tumor are additional risk factors for lymphedema. It is worth assessing the risk before surgery as this can prevent the occurrence of BCRL at the initial stage of breast cancer management. The clinical utility of many diagnostic tools and lymphedema surveillance allows early stage and even subclinical BCRL to be diagnosed, and allows real-time monitoring of the disease. The early diagnosis of BRCL allows treatment at an early stage, which is beneficial to the reduction of excess limb volume and the improvement of quality of life. At present, the major therapeutic methods of BCRL include complex decongestive therapy, pneumatic compression devices, participating in exercise, microsurgery and liposuction, each of which alleviates lymphedema effectively. No medications for treatment of BRCL have yet been developed. However, the recent findings on the success of molecular therapy in animal models may remedy this deficiency. Furthermore, the volume reduction of swollen limbs without swelling rebound by transplanting autologous stem cells has been successfully reported in some pilot studies, which may provide a new technique for treating BCRL. This review aimed to discuss the pathogenesis, clinical manifestation, risk factors, advantages and disadvantages of diagnostic tools, lymphedema surveillance and the characteristics of traditional and newly emerging BCRL treatments.

A scoring system for predicting the risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema

Objective

We aimed to establish a scoring system to predict the risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema.

Methods

From April 2017 to December 2018, 533 patients who previously underwent surgery for breast cancer were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Univariate analysis was performed to explore and define the risk factors. A scoring system was then established on the basis of odds ratio values in the regression analysis.

Results

The additive scoring system values ranged from 6 to 22. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of this scoring system showed a sensitivity and specificity of 83.3% and 57.3%, respectively, to predict the risk of lymphedema at a cut-off of 15.5 points; the area under the curve was 0.736 (95% confidence interval: 0.662–0.811), with χ² = 5.134 (P = 0.274) for the Hosmer–Lemeshow test.

Conclusions

The predictive efficiency and accuracy of the scoring system were acceptable, and the system could be used to predict and screen groups at high risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema.

A N0 Predicting Model for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Omission in Early Breast Cancer Upstaged From Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

BACKGROUND

A prediction model with high sensitivity for the detection of negative axillary involvement can reduce additional axillary surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) upstaged to invasive cancer while saving patients with pure DCIS from unnecessary axillary surgeries. Using a nationwide database, we developed and validated a scoring system for guidance in selective sentinel lymph node biopsy omission.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 41,895 patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer from the Korean Breast Cancer Registry were included. The study cohort was randomly divided for the development and validation of the prediction model. Missing data were filled in using multiple imputation. Factors that were significantly associated with axillary lymph node (ALN) metastasis in > 50% of datasets were included in the final prediction model.

RESULTS

The frequency of ALN metastasis in the total cohort was 24.5%. After multivariable logistic regression analysis, variables that were associated with ALN metastasis were palpability, multifocality, location, size, histologic type, grade, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor expression, and Ki-67 level. A scoring system was developed using these factors. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the scoring system was 0.750 in both training and validating sets. The cutoff value for performing sentinel lymph node biopsy was determined as a score of 4 to obtain prediction sensitivity higher than 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

A scoring system to predict the probability of ALN metastasis was developed and validated. The application of this system in the clinic may reduce unnecessary axillary surgeries in patients with DCIS and minimize additional axillary surgery for upstaged patients with invasive cancer.

Survivorship, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period. This portion of the guidelines describes recommendations regarding the management of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and lymphedema. In addition, recommendations regarding immunizations and the prevention of infections in cancer survivors are included.

Taxane-based chemotherapy and risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many studies were performed to explore the correlation between taxane-based chemotherapy and the risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), however, with inconsistent results. Hence, the purpose of this study is to evaluate whether taxane-based chemotherapy is a risk factor for BCRL.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic search of clinical trials published in the PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases will be conducted to identify eligible studies up to the date of December 31, 2018. We will employ risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to estimate the correlations between taxane-based chemotherapy and BCRL. Meta-analysis will be performed using Stata SE version 12.0 software.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will provide a high-quality synthesis of existing evidence of the correlations between taxane-based chemotherapy and the risk of BCRL.

CONCLUSION

The protocol will provide updated evidence for the use of taxane-based chemotherapy in postoperative breast cancer patients.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

It is not necessary for ethical approval because it is based on published studies. The protocol will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or presented at a topic-related conference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review protocol has been registered with a number of CRD42019123989.

The legacy of lymphedema: Impact on nursing practice and vascular access

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic condition characterized by an abnormal accumulation of protein-rich fluid in tissues resulting in swelling of the upper limb or trunk after treatment. Lack of consensus on definition, classification and grading of BCRL has led to subjective and objective parameters estimating incidence and severity. Prospective studies estimate the risk of BCRL to be approximately 21.4% (14.9-29.8). In patients with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), the estimated risk of 19% (13.5-28.2) was about four times higher than those patients who had sentinel lymph node biopsy (5.6%, 6.1-7.9). Seventy percent of these patients will experience BCRL within two years of surgery, 90% within three years, and a 1% rate per year thereafter. Many patients who have no high-risk variables such as mastectomy, ALND and radiation therapy develop BCRL. Patients fear this complication, which has no cure and no proven prevention strategies. Risk reduction strategies, primarily focused on reducing trauma to the surgical arm, are based on anecdotal information and effectively restrict the use of the at-risk limb for the patient's lifetime. Although broad risk reduction strategies have been recommended, the avoidance of needle sticks has become the most common strategy practised, enforced through institutional policies and procedures and reinforced through patient education initiatives and breast cancer support groups. Large cohort studies have found no significant association between blood draws and intravenous infusions in the surgical arm and the development of BCRL. Current literature supports that approximately 21% of patients will develop BCRL, leaving 79% free of the complication. Due to increased survival, breast cancer survivors go on to develop other healthcare issues that may require vascular access. Therefore, long-held beliefs with regards to risk factors and preventative measures need to be challenged. Education of healthcare providers, patients and support groups through the dissemination of evidence-based information on the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of BCRL is necessary to ensure that patients receive the best care possible with the least risk.

Traveling With Cancer: A Guide for Oncologists in the Modern World

PURPOSE

Travel for patients with cancer has become more achievable because of gains in quality of life and overall survival. The risk assessment of these patients is complex, and there is a paucity of data to which clinicians can refer. We present the challenges of traveling with cancer and a review of the literature.

METHODS

A review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A search using the terms "cancer," "advanced cancer," "metastases," "brain edema," "lymphoedema," "pneumothorax," "pleural effusion," "pericardial effusion," pneumonitis," "hypoxia," "end-of-life," and "shunt," combined with "flying" and "air travel," was conducted. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies up to December 2018. Studies, case reports, or guidelines referring to travel in the context of adult patients with malignancies were included. A total of 745 published articles were identified; 16 studies were included. An inclusive approach to data extraction was used.

RESULTS

There were no specific criteria to deem a patient with cancer fit to travel. Neurologic, respiratory, and cardiac implications, and time from recent surgery or procedure need to be considered There was a lack of high-quality studies to inform decisions, but the British Thoracic Society and Aerospace Medical Association Medical Guidelines included recommendations for fitness to fly for patients with cancer.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of large prospective studies, individual fitness to travel should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind that maximizing a patient's ability to safely travel is an important goal for many individuals with cancer.

Epirubicin chemotherapy in women with breast cancer: Alternating arms for intravenous administration to reduce chemical phlebitis

OBJECTIVE

To establish whether using alternating arms for peripheral intravenous epirubicin administration affects the severity or duration of epirubicin-induced phlebitis.

METHODS

An observational study of women with breast cancer (n = 237) in a UK Cancer Centre. Data were analysed after receiving three treatment cycles according to the arm used for epirubicin administration: same, alternating or mixed arm (two consecutive cycles in one arm and one in the alternate arm). Phlebitis severity was graded by clinical staff after each treatment; participants also self-reported symptoms during treatment and for up to 6 months after.

RESULTS

The alternating arm group experienced significantly less severe symptoms than the other arm use groups, 6% (4 of 64) compared with 34% (p < 0.001, odds ratio: 0.13 (95% CI: 0.043-0.38) alternating arm compared with same arm group). The alternating arm group reported less pain (p = 0.013), lower overall impact (p = 0.009), lower effect on function (p = 0.032) and shorter duration of symptoms (p = 0.001) than the other arm use groups.

CONCLUSION

Using alternating arms for peripheral administration of epirubicin significantly reduces the severity and duration of chemical phlebitis and is recommended to improve patient experience and reduce the need for central venous access devices.

Identification and Management of Lymphedema in Patients With Breast Cancer

Breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL) is a potentially debilitating and often irreversible complication of breast cancer treatment. Risk of BCRL is proportional to the extent of axillary surgery and radiation. Other risk factors include obesity and infections. Given the 5-year survival rate of 90% and its potential impact on the quality of life of survivors of breast cancer, BCRL has become a significant financial burden on the health care system. Minimizing axillary surgery and radiation has been proven to reduce the risk of BCRL. Comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment at the time of initial diagnosis; early referral to physical therapy after surgery; and patient education regarding weight loss, skin, and nail care are cornerstones of the management of early-stage lymphedema. End-stage lymphedema may benefit from referral to a plastic surgeon specializing in lymphedema surgery. In this review, we attempt to review the incidence, risk factors, staging, prevention, and management of this complication of breast cancer treatment. We also describe our multidisciplinary approach for the prevention of this complication at the time of initial diagnosis.

Cancer-associated secondary lymphoedema

Lymphoedema is an oedematous condition with a specific and complex tissue biology. In the clinical context of cancer, the pathogenesis of lymphoedema ensues most typically from the modalities employed to stage and treat the cancer (in particular, surgery and radiotherapy). Despite advances in cancer treatment, lifelong lymphoedema (limb swelling and the accompanying chronic inflammatory processes) affects approximately one in seven individuals treated for cancer, although estimates of lymphoedema prevalence following cancer treatment vary widely depending upon the diagnostic criteria used and the duration of follow-up. The natural history of cancer-associated lymphoedema is defined by increasing limb girth, fibrosis, inflammation, abnormal fat deposition and eventual marked cutaneous pathology, which also increases the risk of recurrent skin infections. Lymphoedema can substantially affect the daily quality of life of patients, as, in addition to aesthetic concerns, it can cause discomfort and affect the ability to carry out daily tasks. Clinical diagnosis is dependent on comparison of the affected region with the equivalent region on the unaffected side and, if available, with pre-surgical measurements. Surveillance is indicated in this high-risk population to facilitate disease detection at the early stages, when therapeutic interventions are most effective. Treatment modalities include conservative physical strategies that feature complex decongestive therapy (including compression garments) and intermittent pneumatic compression, as well as an emerging spectrum of surgical interventions, including liposuction for late-stage disease. The future application of pharmacological and microsurgical therapeutics for cancer-associated lymphoedema holds great promise.

[General practitioner questionnaire concerning upper limb lymphedema after breast cancer]

INTRODUCTION

In France, breast cancer is the most frequent cancer in women. Lymphedema, the main complication, is poorly known. The objective of this study was to assess the state of knowledge of upper limb lymphedema (risk factors, complications, treatment) after treatment of breast cancer among general practitioners from the Haute-Normandie and Île-de-France regions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study with 23 closed questions was sent by email to 490 practicing doctors.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-two questionnaires (33%) could be analyzed. Among the participating physicians (men: 55%), 46% were aged over 50 and 75% were from the Haute-Normandie region; 86% of them followed at least 5 women who had breast cancer. Risk factors for lymphedema were: axillary dissection (89%), risk reduction with sentinel lymph node (82%), radiotherapy (81%), mastectomy (45%) and overweight/obesity (42%). For 54% of physicians, lymphedema appeared within 6 months after cancer treatment and was diagnosed upon examination (clinical signs, perimeter measurements) in 78%, without the need for radiological examinations (100%). Physicians with more than 10 years of experience searched for more lymphedema (86% vs. 62%, P<0.0001). Prescriptions included: elastic compression during the day (77%), manual lymphatic drainage (74%), overnight compression (36%) and consultation in a specialized lymphology department (8%). Six percent of physicians had never managed lymphedema and 22% sent patients to an oncologist. Advice given was: prevention of infectious risk (80%), weight loss (42%), avoidance of sports involving the affected limb (22%), and regular arm elevation (14%). Physicians recommended avoiding blood sampling (75%), measuring blood pressure (66%) on the limb ipsilateral to cancer, while 20% did not prohibit any action on the limb.

CONCLUSION

Lymphedema knowledge in general practitioners is generally adequate although the number of women followed by each of them was low. It seems necessary to optimize the training of generalists on lymphedema in order to improve patient management.

Optimizing Patient Positioning to Reduce Variation in the Measurement of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema

Background: Prospective lymphedema screening is recommended for breast cancer patients. We observed interoperator variation in perometer-acquired arm volume measurements (P-AVMs) due to patient instability during measurements. We hypothesized that improved positioning during perometry would reduce P-AVM variability. Methods and Results: Each arm was measured three times by each operator using a perometer. With the original configuration, P-AVM was performed by 2 operators in 30 patients and four cohorts of 5 to 6 operators in 5 volunteers. Repeatability, reproducibility, and gage precision/tolerance (P/T) ratio were calculated. A customized handlebar was installed to optimize patient positioning. P-AVMs were performed in 20 patients with both configurations. Student's t-test was used to compare variation. With the new configuration, P-AVMs were performed by three operators in five volunteers and five operators in three volunteers. Repeatability, reproducibility, and gage P/T ratio were calculated. For the original configuration, gage P/T ratio was 19.9% for two operators and 35.9% for four cohorts of five to six operators. One operator using the new handlebar decreased P-AVM variability by 28% (p = 0.02). For the new configuration, gage P/T ratio was 6.5% for three operators and 18.7% for five operators. Conclusions: Optimizing patient setup improved P-AVM accuracy. P-AVM accuracy is critical as lack of accuracy results in either overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis of lymphedema, which in turn results in either over- or undertreatment of this dreaded condition. A higher number of operators were associated with greater P-AVM variability.

Perceptions of vascular access for intravenous systemic therapy and risk factors for lymphedema in early-stage breast cancer-a patient survey

Background

The choice of vascular access for systemic therapy administration in breast cancer remains an area of clinical equipoise, and patient preference is not consistently acknowledged. Using a patient survey, we evaluated the patient experience with vascular access during treatment for early-stage breast cancer and explored perceived risk factors for lymphedema.

Methods

Patients who had received systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer were surveyed at 2 Canadian cancer centres.

Results

Responses were received from 187 patients (94%). The route of vascular access was peripheral intravenous line (IV) in 24%, a peripherally inserted central catheter (picc) in 42%, and a surgically inserted central catheter (port) in 34%. Anthracycline-based regimens were associated with a greater use of central vascular access devices (cvads- that is, a picc or port; 86/97, 89%). Trastuzumab use was associated with greater use of ports (49/64, 77%). Although few patients (7%) reported being involved in the decisions about vascular access, most were satisfied or very satisfied (88%) with their access type. Patient preference centred mainly on avoiding delays in the initiation of chemotherapy. Self-reported rates of complications (183 evaluable responses) were infiltration with peripheral IVs (9/44, 20%), local skin infections with piccs (7/77, 9%), and thrombosis with ports (4/62, 6%). Perceived risk factors for lymphedema included use of the surgical arm for blood draws (117/156, 75%) and blood pressure measurement (115/156, 74%).

Conclusions

Most patients reported being satisfied with the vascular access used for their treatment. Improved education and understanding about the evidence-based requirements for vascular access are needed. Perceived risk factors for lymphedema remain variable and are not evidence-based.

Optimizing vascular access for patients receiving intravenous systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer-a survey of oncology nurses and physicians

Background

Despite advances in systemic therapy choices for patients with early-stage breast cancer, optimal practices for intravenous (IV) access remain unknown. That lack of knowledge holds particularly true for the use of central venous access devices (cvads) such as peripherally inserted central catheters (piccs) and implanted vascular access devices (ports).

Methods

Using a survey of Canadian oncologists and oncology nurses responsible for the care of breast cancer patients, we evaluated current access practices, perceptions of complications, and perceptions of risk, and we estimated complication rates and evaluated perceived risk factors for lymphedema.

Results

Survey responses were received from 25 physicians and 57 oncology nurses. Administration of trastuzumab or an anthracycline was associated with a higher likelihood of a cvad being recommended. Other factors associated with recommendation of a cvad included prior difficult IV access and a recommendation from the chemotherapy nurse. Although the complication rates perceived to be associated with the use of piccs and ports remained high, respondents felt that cvads might improve patient quality of life. Risk factors perceived to be associated with the risk of lymphedema were axillary lymph node dissection, radiation to the axilla, and line-associated infection. Factors known to be unrelated to lymphedema risk (specifically, blood draws and blood pressure measurement) continue to be perceived as posing a higher risk.

Conclusions

Despite widespread use of chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer, the type of venous access used for treatment varies significantly, as do perceptions about the risks of cvad use and the risk for lymphedema development. Further prospective studies are needed to identify best-practice strategies.

Breast cancer-related lymphedema: risk factors, precautionary measures, and treatments

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a negative sequela of breast cancer treatment, and well-established risk factors include axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and regional lymph node radiation (RLNR). BCRL affects approximately 1 in 5 patients treated for breast cancer, and it has a significant negative impact on patients' quality of life after breast cancer treatment, serving as a reminder of previous illness. This paper is a comprehensive review of the current evidence regarding BCRL risk factors, precautionary guidelines, prospective screening, early intervention, and surgical and non-surgical treatment techniques. Through establishing evidence-based BCRL risk factors, researchers and clinicians are better able to prevent, anticipate, and provide early intervention for BCRL. Clinicians can identify patients at high risk and utilize prospective screening programs, which incorporate objective measurements, patient reported outcome measures (PROM), and clinical examination, thereby creating opportunities for early intervention and, accordingly, improving BCRL prognosis. Innovative surgical techniques that minimize and/or prophylactically correct lymphatic disruption, such as axillary reverse mapping (ARM) and lymphatic-venous anastomoses (LVAs), are promising avenues for reducing BCRL incidence. Nonetheless, for those patients with BCRL who remain unresponsive to conservative methods like complete decongestive therapy (CDT), surgical treatment options aiming to reduce limb volume or restore lymphatic flow may prove to be palliative or corrective. It is only through a strong team-based approach that such a continuum of care can exist, and a multidisciplinary approach to BCRL screening, intervention, and research is therefore strongly encouraged.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Edema and Lymphedema in the Cancer Patient

BACKGROUND

Lymphedema occurs commonly in cancer survivors. It is crucial to properly assess cancer patients in order to distinguish lymphedema from general edema and to initiate evidence based treatment.

PURPOSE

To provide evidence based recommendations for screening, evaluating, and treating lymphedema and to establish the role of the nurse in the care of patients with lymphedema.

METHODOLOGY

Comprehensive overview with narrative literature review of evidence based lymphedema diagnosis and treatment.

FINDINGS

Cancer-related edema represents numerous complex conditions. A variety of interventions are needed to address prevention, early detection, patient education, and effective treatment.

CONCLUSION

Lymphedema treatment is complex and multimodal, and is provided by an interdisciplinary team of properly trained professionals. Nurses play a major role in evaluating, treating and educating patients on the signs and symptoms of cancer-related edema and patient self-management.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Evidence-based assessment and treatment should be initiated early to improve outcomes and quality of life in patients with cancer-related lymphedema.

Advances in understanding and management of lymphoedema (cancer, primary)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite being neglected both clinically and in research in the past, primary lymphoedema, and lymphoedema secondary to cancer treatment have been the subject of an increasing number of studies in recent years. This review will focus on new developments relevant to clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main themes covered by the review include the incidence and prevalence of lymphoedema, early detection and intervention in cancer-related lymphoedema, risk reduction for the development of cancer-related lymphoedema, surgical treatment, palliative care for lymphoedema in advanced cancer and developments in the genetics of primary lymphoedema.

SUMMARY

Evidence suggests that lymphoedema is more common than has been previously recognized. It continues to be a significant problem for people following cancer treatment. Developments in the early detection and treatment of cancer-related lymphoedema should reduce the future impact for patients. Advice on how to reduce the risk of developing lymphoedema may need to be modified in light of recent research. New treatments such as surgical procedures are still in their infancy but the results seem encouraging for selected patients.

Air Travel Safety in Postoperative Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Air travel has long been a dilemma in post-breast cancer surgery patients. Anecdotal reports have described adverse outcomes on surgical wound, implants, and lymphedema during air travel. This review aims to evaluate the best evidence from the literature concerning the air travel safety in breast cancer patients. A comprehensive review was performed of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases using a predefined strategy. Retrieved studies were independently screened and rated for relevance. Data were extracted by 2 researchers. We reviewed the best evidence on air travel safety in postoperative breast cancer patients. Evidence was limited in the current literature to suggest adverse effects on postoperative mastectomy wounds and drains by high-altitude travel. Similarly, adverse effects on breast implants were limited to case reports and ex vivo experiments. A systematic review of 12 studies concluded that air travel is not associated with upper limb lymphedema after breast cancer surgery. Deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) is a known complication after air travel; in addition, malignancy itself is a known risk factor for DVT. Evidence of safety to continue tamoxifen during the period of air travel is lacking in the literature. Evidence to support the use of systemic DVT prophylaxis in general postoperative breast cancer patients is also limited. Best evidence from a large retrospective study suggested that mechanical antiembolism devices and early mobilization are the only measures required. Air travel is generally safe in patients after breast cancer surgery.

Nonoperative Treatment of Lymphedema

Complex decongestive therapy is the mainstay of lymphedema (LE) therapy. It consists of two phases: an intensive volume reduction phase, principally involving low-stretch bandages and manual lymph drainage (MLD), followed by compression garment use to maintain the reduction achieved. Adjunctive treatments include the use of a sequential gradient pump, LE-specific exercises, skin and nail care, as well as risk-reduction precautions. Herein the techniques are described and the evidence for their effectiveness is reviewed.

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.

Air Travel and Postoperative Lymphedema-A Systematic Review

Lymphedema is not uncommon after axillary dissection for breast cancer. Improved survival of patients with breast cancer from advances in adjuvant therapy has resulted in increased awareness of the quality of life for long-term survivors. Air travel has been postulated as 1 of the risk factors of lymphedema exacerbation. In the present systematic review, we sought to critically evaluate the current data on this topic. The present study was registered in the Research Registry. A systematic review of lymphedema and air travel was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. The Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies up to June 2017 with a predefined strategy. The retrieved studies were independently screened and rated for relevance. Data were extracted by 2 of us. A total of 55 studies were identified using predefined keywords; 12 studies were included using the criteria stated in the study protocol. A pooled analysis of 2051 patients with a history of air travel revealed that ≤ 14.5% developed lymphedema after air flight. However, a subsequent analysis of 4 studies with a control arm showed that 107 of 1189 patients (9%) with a documented history of air travel developed lymphedema compared with 204 of 2356 patients (8.7%) who had not flown (χ² test; P = .80). Two studies (1030 patients) evaluated the effect of lymphedema on patients' air travel patterns. Of the 1030 patients, 141 (13.7%) had totally avoided air travel after the development of lymphedema. However, air travel was not adversely associated with the development of lymphedema.

Incidence and risk factors of lymphedema after breast cancer treatment: 10 years of follow-up

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of lymphedema 10 years after surgical treatment for breast cancer.

METHODS

Prospective observational hospital-based cohort of women undergoing axillary lymph node dissection. Lymphedema was assessed by indirect volume, measured by circumference, and diagnosed if there was a difference of 200 mL between the arms or if the patient was treated for it. Independent variables were patient, tumour and treatment characteristics. Descriptive statistics were conducted as survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. Cox regression was performed, considering a 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

RESULTS

The study evaluated 964 women. The cumulative incidence of lymphedema observed was 13.5% at two years of follow-up, 30.2% at five years and 41.1% at 10 years. Final model showed an increased risk for lymphedema among women that underwent radiotherapy (HR = 2.19; 95%CI 1.63-2.94), were obese (HR = 1.52; 95%CI 1.20-1.92), had seroma formation after surgery (HR = 1.46; 95%CI 1.14-1.87), underwent chemotherapy infusion in the affected limb (HR = 1.45; 95%CI 1.12-1.87) or advanced disease staging (HR = 1.41; 95%CI 1.11-1.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Cumulative incidence of lymphedema was 41.1%. Women undergoing axillary radiotherapy, obese, who developed seroma, underwent chemotherapy infusion in the affected limb and with advanced disease had a higher risk of lymphedema.