What do lymphedema patients expect from a treatment and what do they achieve? A descriptive study

Evaluation of Respiratory Function, Respiratory Muscle Strength, Physical Activity, and Functionality in Patients with Lower Extremity Lymphedema

Background: Lymphedema is a chronic, progressive condition that has major physical and psychological consequences. It was aimed to examine the respiratory functions, respiratory muscle strength, physical activity level, and functionality of patients with lower extremity lymphedema and to compare them with healthy controls. Methods and Results: A total of 82 individuals (29.3% male, 70.7% female, with a mean age of 49.89 ± 15.07 years) with lower extremity lymphedema (Group 1) and healthy individuals (Group 2) were included. Respiratory functions of the participants were evaluated by spirometry, respiratory muscle strength by maximum oral pressure measurements, physical activity levels using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF), functionality by Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) and Timed Up and Go test (TUG test). All respiratory function test measurements were lower in mean Group 1 than in Group 2 (p < 0.05). While inspiratory muscle strength did not differ between the groups (p > 0.05), expiratory muscle strength was lower in Group 1 than Group 2 (p < 0.05). Although spent time and energy for sitting were higher in Group 1 (p < 0.05), IPAQ vigorous-, moderate-, and light-intensity physical activity (MET-min/week) and IPAQ-total score did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). In Group 1, mean of LEFS score was lower and TUG test (seconds) in Group 1 was longer compared to Group 2 (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Respiratory functions, expiratory muscle strength, and functionality in patients with lower extremity lymphedema were adversely affected; however, inspiratory muscle strength and physical activity levels were similar to those of healthy controls.

Advances in lymphedema: An under-recognized disease with a hopeful future for patients

Lymphedema has traditionally been underappreciated by the healthcare community. Understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and treatments beyond compression have been limited until recently. Increased investigation has demonstrated the key role of inflammation and resultant fibrosis and adipose deposition leading to the clinical sequelae and associated reduction in quality of life with lymphedema. New imaging techniques including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), indocyanine green lymphography, and high-frequency ultrasound offer improved resolution and understanding of lymphatic anatomy and flow. Nonsurgical therapy with compression, exercise, and weight loss remains the mainstay of therapy, but growing surgical options show promise. Physiologic procedures (lymphovenous anastomosis and vascularized lymph node transfers) improve lymphatic flow in the diseased limb and may reduce edema and the burden of compression. Debulking, primarily with liposuction to remove the adipose deposition that has accumulated, results in a dramatic decrease in limb girth in appropriately selected patients. Though early, there are also exciting developments of potential therapeutic targets tackling the underlying drivers of the disease. Multidisciplinary teams have developed to offer the full breadth of evaluation and current management, but the development of a greater understanding and availability of therapies is needed to ensure patients with lymphedema have greater opportunity for optimal care.

A Low-Cost, Portable, and Mobile-Based Bioimpedance Lymphedema Diagnosis and Monitoring System (Mobilymph): A Validation Study

Background: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a debilitating chronic illness. Early management and prevention of disease progression rely on lymphedema monitoring and assessment. At present, lymphedema monitoring systems are costly and do not promote remote monitoring. Thus, a low-cost, portable, mobile-based bioimpedance lymphedema monitoring system (Mobilymph) was developed to ensure continuous lymphedema surveillance. Method and Results: Forty-five healthy and 100 BCRL participants were recruited in this study. Mobilymph bioimpedance measurement was validated with a Quadscan 4000 on healthy participants' arms. The interarm bioimpedance ratio was determined to evaluate the discriminatory capability of Mobilymph to detect BCRL. Mobilymph's bioimpedance results show no significant difference compared to Quadscan 4000. The interarm bioimpedance ratios were significantly different (p < 0.001), between participants in healthy and Stage 1, Stage 0 and Stage 1, and Stage 1 and Stage 2. Healthy and Stage 0 participants had similar interarm impedance ratios (p = 0.63). Conclusion: The bioimpedance results show that Mobilymph bioimpedance measurement is comparable to Quadscan 4000 and can detect BCRL arms. Thus, Mobilymph lymphedema monitoring system offers a feasible solution for early lymphedema diagnosis and treatment monitoring. Clinical trial registration number: MREC ID No.: 2020316-8181.

Financial toxicity experienced by patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review on financial toxicity of breast cancer-related lymphedema.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched on September 11, 2022. Eligible studies were identified, analyzed, and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Empirical studies were appraised by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 was used to assess the mixed method studies.

RESULTS

A total of 963 articles were identified, but only 7 articles reporting on 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. A 2-year treatment for lymphedema was approximately USD$14,877 to USD$23,167 in America. In Australia, the average out-of-pocket costs ranged from A$207 to A$1400 (USD$156.26 to USD$1056.83) per year. Outpatient visits, compressed clothing, and hospital admissions were the dominant costs. The financial toxicity was associated with the severity of lymphedema, and patients with heavy financial burden had to reduce other expenses or even forgo the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer-related lymphedema aggravated the economic burden of patients. The included studies showed great variation in the methods used and therefore differences in cost results. The national government should further improve the healthcare system and increase the insurance coverage of lymphedema treatment to alleviate this burden. More research is needed to focus on financial toxicity experience of breast cancer patients with lymphedema.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The cost of the ongoing treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema influences patients' economic situation and quality of life. Survivors need to be informed early about the potential financial burden associated with lymphedema treatment.

Lower extremity lymphoedema: some recent literature highlights

Lower extremity lymphoedema is common after many cancers. Nevertheless, epidemiological estimates of the prevalence of lower extremity lymphoedema vary widely. A recent study, however, clarified the rates in women with colorectal, endometrial and ovarian malignancies: about one third self-reported lower extremity lymphoedema. The study also confirmed that lower extremity lymphoedema can markedly undermine physical functioning. Some patients, however, seem to be at especially high-risk of developing lower extremity lymphoedema, such as those who undergo extensive lymphadenectomy. Moreover, until recently, few clinical trials assessed treatment benefits from the patient's perspective. A recent study explored the goals and benefits that matter most to patients, which may help healthcare professionals individualise management.