Compression prophylaxis may increase the potential for flight-associated lymphoedema after breast cancer treatment

Age as a risk factor for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) has been widely reported in the medical literature. Various patient characteristics, including age, have been investigated as possible risk factors for this disease entity, but the existence and direction of the cause-and-effect relationship are still unclear. In this review, we aimed to evaluate the effect of age on development of BRCL.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for relevant articles, which were found to be published between 1974 and 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies involving 19,396 patients were selected. The average age of patients was 54.9. 26 studies were included in the final analysis, and 13 articles reported no association between age and BCRL development.

CONCLUSIONS

Though studies presented different findings, the majority did not identify age as a risk factor for development of lymphedema. However, the level of evidence of individual studies was low. In this article, we call attention to the need for uniform design of lymphedema studies and diagnosis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

All patients should be informed and screened regularly for lymphedema during and after the treatment independent of their age.

The prevention and treatment of breast cancer- related lymphedema: A review

Background

Breast cancer- related lymphedema (BCRL) affects about 3 to 5 million patients worldwide, with about 20,000 per year in the United States. As breast cancer mortality is declining due to improved diagnostics and treatments, the long-term effects of treatment for BCRL need to be addressed.

Methods

The American Society of Breast Surgeons Lymphatic Surgery Working Group conducted a large review of the literature in order to develop guidelines on BCRL prevention and treatment. This was a comprehensive but not systematic review of the literature. This was inclusive of recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews evaluating the prevention and treatment of BCRL. There were 25 randomized clinical trials, 13 systemic reviews and meta-analyses, and 87 observational studies included.

Results

The findings of our review are detailed in the paper, with each guideline being analyzed with the most recent data that the group found evidence of to suggest these recommendations.

Conclusions

Prevention and treatment of BCRL involve a multidisciplinary team. Early detection, before clinically apparent, is crucial to prevent irreversible lymphedema. Awareness of risk factors and appropriate practice adjustments to reduce the risk aids are crucial to decrease the progression of lymphedema. The treatment can be costly, time- consuming, and not always effective, and therefore, the overall goal should be prevention.

Risk factors for breast cancer-related lymphedema in patients undergoing 3 years of prospective surveillance with intervention

Background

To evaluate risk factors (treatment‐related, comorbidities, and lifestyle) for breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL) within the context of a Prospective Surveillance and Early Intervention (PSEI) model of care for subclinical BCRL.

Methods

The parent randomized clinical trial assigned patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer to PSEI with either bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) or tape measurement (TM). Surgical, systemic and radiation treatments, comorbidities, and lifestyle factors were recorded. Detection of subclinical BCRL (change from baseline of either BIS L‐Dex ≥6.5 or tape volume ≥ 5% and < 10%) triggered an intervention with compression therapy. Volume change from baseline ≥10% indicated progression to chronic lymphedema and need for complex decongestive physiotherapy. In this secondary analysis, multinomial logistic regressions including main and interaction effects of the study group and risk factors were used to test for factor associations with outcomes (no lymphedema, subclinical lymphedema, progression to chronic lymphedema after intervention, progression to chronic lymphedema without intervention). Post hoc tests of significant interaction effects were conducted using Bonferroni‐corrected alphas of .008; otherwise, an alpha of .05 was used for statistical significance.

Results

The sample (n = 918; TM = 457; BIS = 461) was female with a median age of 58.4 years. Factors associated with BCRL risk included axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) (p < .001), taxane‐based chemotherapy (p < .001), regional nodal irradiation (RNI) (p ≤ .001), body mass index >30 (p = .002), and rurality (p = .037). Mastectomy, age, hypertension, diabetes, seroma, smoking, and air travel were not associated with BCRL risk.

Conclusions

Within the context of 3 years of PSEI for subclinical lymphedema, variables of ALND, taxane‐based chemotherapy, RNI, body mass index >30, and rurality increased risk.

The Prospective Surveillance and Early Intervention Model promotes identification and treatment of subclinical lymphedema, facilitating prevention of chronic lymphedema and risk reduction. Axillary lymph node dissection, taxane‐based chemotherapy, regional nodal irradiation, body mass index >30, and rurality are critical risk factors within the context of the Prospective Surveillance and Early Intervention Model for some patients.

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.

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.

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.

Lymphedema: Diagnostic workup and management

Lymphedema is a localized form of tissue swelling resulting from excessive retention of lymphatic fluid in the interstitial compartment. It is caused by impaired lymphatic drainage. Lymphedema is a chronic progressive disease with serious physical and psychosocial implications. It can be challenging to diagnose, especially in obese patients and in those with coexisting venous disease. We performed PubMed and Google Scholar searches of the English-language literature (1966-2017) using the terms lymphedema, lymphedema management, and lymphatic complications. Relevant publications were manually reviewed for additional resources. There are currently no standard guidelines for the diagnosis of lymphedema. There is no cure yet for lymphedema, and the objective for management is to limit disease progression and prevent complications.

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.

A comprehensive overview on the surgical management of secondary lymphedema of the upper and lower extremities related to prior oncologic therapies

Secondary lymphedema of the upper and lower extremities related to prior oncologic therapies, including cancer surgeries, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, is a major cause of long-term morbidity in cancer patients. For the upper extremities, it is most commonly associated with prior oncologic therapies for breast cancer, while for the lower extremities, it is most commonly associated with oncologic therapies for gynecologic cancers, urologic cancers, melanoma, and lymphoma. Both non-surgical and surgical management strategies have been developed and utilized, with the primary goal of all management strategies being volume reduction of the affected extremity, improvement in patient symptomology, and the reduction/elimination of resultant extremity-related morbidities, including recurrent infections. Surgical management strategies include: (i) ablative surgical methods (i.e., Charles procedure, suction-assisted lipectomy/liposuction) and (ii) physiologic surgical methods (i.e., lymphaticolymphatic bypass, lymphaticovenular anastomosis, vascularized lymph node transfer, vascularized omental flap transfer). While these surgical management strategies can result in dramatic improvement in extremity-related symptomology and improve quality of life for these cancer patients, many formidable challenges remain for successful management of secondary lymphedema. It is hopeful that ongoing clinical research efforts will ultimately lead to more complete and sustainable treatment strategies and perhaps a cure for secondary lymphedema and its devastating resultant morbidities.

Lymphedema Precautions: Time to Abandon Old Practices?

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.A 46-year-old premenopausal woman with a body mass index of 21 was found on screening mammography to have a new, approximately 1-cm spiculated mass with associated calcifications in the upper outer quadrant of the left breast. Stereotactic core biopsy showed a focus of invasive duct carcinoma, strongly positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, with associated ductal carcinoma in situ. Clinical examination revealed no palpable mass or axillary lymphadenopathy. She underwent a left lumpectomy with seed localization and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Final pathology revealed an 8-mm well-differentiated invasive carcinoma without lymphovascular invasion and intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in situ. The margins were clear, and three sentinel lymph nodes were negative for metastasis. The 21-gene recurrence score was 10, suggesting a 7% risk of 10-year distant recurrence with adjuvant endocrine treatment. After the completion of adjuvant radiotherapy (42.50 Gy in 16 fractions to the breast), the patient has returned for a follow-up visit. She is a professional violinist and would like to know what she can do to prevent lymphedema on her upcoming flight to Vienna.

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.

Symptoms: Lymphedema

Lymphedema is one of the main late effects from breast cancer treatment affecting 3-60% of breast cancer survivors. Primarily occurring in the hand, arm, and/or affected breast, symptoms of lymphedema include swelling, pain, redness, restriction of arm/hand movement, tightness and feelings of fullness. These symptoms not only may limit physical functioning but also negatively affect quality of life, body image, social functioning, and financial status of breast cancer survivors with lymphedema. Unfortunately, there are no standardized methods for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Despite its prevalence and lack of clinical guidelines, lymphedema is one of the most poorly understood, relatively underestimated, and least researched complications of cancer treatment. This chapter reviews the current problem of breast cancer-related lymphedema by investigating prevention and risk reduction strategies, diagnosis, and treatment. In addition, this chapter identifies future research opportunities focusing on prevention and risk reduction strategies, quality of life and physical function, surveillance, patient education, cost, diagnosis, and treatment. Challenges and recommendations for future research in these areas, particularly among underserved populations, are discussed.

Trends in risk reduction practices for the prevention of lymphedema in the first 12 months after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Lymphedema is a feared complication of breast cancer surgery. We evaluated the trends in lymphedema development, patient worry, and risk reduction behaviors.

STUDY DESIGN

We prospectively enrolled 120 women undergoing sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary node dissection (ALND) for breast cancer and assessed lymphedema by upper extremity volume preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. We defined lymphedema as a >10% volume change from baseline relative to the contralateral upper extremity. Patients completed a validated instrument evaluating lymphedema worry and risk reducing behaviors. Associations were determined by Fisher's exact and signed rank tests.

RESULTS

At 6 months, lymphedema was similar between ALND and SLNB patients (p = 0.22), but was higher in ALND women at 12 months (19% vs 3%, p = 0.005). A clear relationship exists between relative change in upper extremity volume at 6 and 12 months (Kendall tau coefficient 0.504, p < 0.001). Among the women with 0 to 9% volume change at 6 months, 22% had progressive swelling, and 18% resolved their volume changes at 12 months. Overall, 75% of ALND and 50% of SLNB patients had persistent worry about lymphedema at follow-up, and no difference existed in the number of risk reducing behaviors practiced among the 2 groups (p > 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Upper extremity volumes fluctuate, and there is a period of latency before development of lymphedema. Despite the low risk of lymphedema after SLNB, most women worry about lymphedema and practice risk reducing behaviors. Additional study into early upper extremity volume changes is warranted to allay the fears of most women and better predict which women will progress to lymphedema.

Cancer-Related Lymphedema Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Impact: A Review

Purpose

Cancer-related lymphedema (LE) is an incurable condition associated with lymph-involved cancer treatments and is an increasing health, quality of life (QOL), and cost burden on a growing cancer survivor population. This review examines the evidence for causes, risk, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and impact of this largely unexamined survivorship concern.

Methods

PubMed and Medline were searched for cancer-related LE literature published since 1990 in English. The resulting references (N = 726) were evaluated for strength of design, methods, sample size, and recent publication and sorted into categories (ie, causes/prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and QOL). Sixty studies were included.

Results

Exercise and physical activity and sentinel lymph node biopsy reduce risk, and overweight and obesity increase risk. Evidence that physiotherapy reduces risk and that lymph node status and number of malignant nodes increase risk is less strong. Perometry and bioimpedence emerged as attractive diagnostic technologies, replacing the use of water displacement in clinical practice. Swelling can also be assessed by measuring arm circumference and relying on self-report. Symptoms can be managed, not cured, with complex physical therapy, low-level laser therapy, pharmacotherapy, and surgery. Sequelae of LE negatively affect physical and mental QOL and range in severity. However, the majority of reviewed studies involved patients with breast cancer; therefore, results may not be applicable to all cancers.

Conclusion

Research into causes, prevention, and effect on QOL of LE and information on LE in cancers other than breast is needed. Consensus on definitions and measurement, increased patient and provider awareness of signs and symptoms, and proper and prompt treatment/access, including psychosocial support, are needed to better understand, prevent, and treat LE.

Effect of air travel on lymphedema risk in women with history of breast cancer

To assess the impact of air travel on swelling of the 'at risk' arm of women treated for breast cancer. Women treated for breast cancer from Canada (n = 60) and from within Australia (n = 12) attending a dragon boat regatta in Queensland, Australia participated. Women were measured within 2 weeks prior to their flight, on arrival in Queensland and, for 40 women travelling from Canada, measured again 6 weeks following return to Canada. Changes to extracellular fluid were measured using a single-frequency bioimpedance device (BIA). Each arm was measured separately using a standardized protocol to obtain the inter-limb impedance ratio. An increase in the ratio indicates accumulated fluid. Information regarding medical management of participants' breast cancer, use of compression garment and history of exercise were also obtained. For most women (95%), air travel did not adversely affect the impedance ratio. The BIA ratio of long-haul travellers was 1.007 +/- 0.065 prior to the flight and 1.006 +/- 0.087 following the flight. The ratio of short-haul travellers was 0.994 +/- 0.033 and following the flight was 1.001 +/- 0.038. Air travel did not cause significant change in BIA ratio in the 'at-risk' arm for the majority of breast cancer survivors who participated in dragon boat racing. Further research is required to determine whether these findings are generalizable to the population of women who have been treated for breast cancer.

Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: patient perceptions and precautionary behaviors

PURPOSE

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy was adopted for the staging of the axilla with the assumption that it would reduce the risk of lymphedema in women with breast cancer. This study was undertaken to examine patient perceptions of lymphedema and use of precautionary behaviors several years after axillary surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Nine hundred thirty-six women who underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone or SLNB followed by axillary lymph node dissection (SLNB/ALND) between June 1, 1999, and May 30, 2003, were evaluated at a median of 5 years after surgery. Patient-perceived lymphedema and avoidant behaviors were assessed through interview and administered a validated instrument, and compared with arm measurements.

RESULTS

Current arm swelling was reported in 3% of patients who received SLNB alone versus 27% of patients who received SLNB/ALND (P < .0001), as compared with 5% and 16%, respectively, with measured lymphedema. Only 41% of patients reporting arm swelling had measured lymphedema, and 5% of patients reporting no arm swelling had measured lymphedema. Risk factors associated with reported arm swelling were greater body weight (P < .0001), higher body mass index (P < .0001), infection (P < .0001), and injury (P = .007) in the ipsilateral arm since surgery. Patients followed more precautions if they had measured or perceived lymphedema.

CONCLUSION

Body weight, infection, and injury are significant risk factors for perceiving lymphedema. There is significant discordance between the presence of measured and patient-perceived lymphedema. When compared to SLNB/ALND, SLNB-alone results in a significantly lower rate of patient-perceived arm swelling 5 years postoperatively, and is perceived by fewer women than are measured to have it.