Dropout from exercise trials among cancer survivors-An individual patient data meta-analysis from the POLARIS study.

INTRODUCTION: The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of exercise among cancer survivors has increased in recent years; however, participants dropping out of the trials are rarely described. The objective of the present study was to assess which combinations of participant and exercise program characteristics were associated with dropout from the exercise arms of RCTs among cancer survivors. METHODS: This study used data collected in the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) study, an international database of RCTs investigating the effects of exercise among cancer survivors. Thirty-four exercise trials, with a total of 2467 patients without metastatic disease randomized to an exercise arm were included. Harmonized studies included a pre and a posttest, and participants were classified as dropouts when missing all assessments at the post-intervention test. Subgroups were identified with a conditional inference tree. RESULTS: Overall, 9.6% of the participants dropped out. Five subgroups were identified in the conditional inference tree based on four significant associations with dropout. Most dropout was observed for participants with BMI >28.4 kg/m2 , performing supervised resistance or unsupervised mixed exercise (19.8% dropout) or had low-medium education and performed aerobic or supervised mixed exercise (13.5%). The lowest dropout was found for participants with BMI >28.4 kg/m2 and high education performing aerobic or supervised mixed exercise (5.1%), and participants with BMI ≤28.4 kg/m2 exercising during (5.2%) or post (9.5%) treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There are several systematic differences between cancer survivors completing and dropping out from exercise trials, possibly affecting the external validity of exercise effects.

Job loss, return to work, and multidimensional well-being after breast cancer treatment in working-age Black and White women.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer survivorship has improved in recent decades, but few studies have assessed the patterns of employment status following diagnosis and the impact of job loss on long-term well-being in ethnically diverse breast cancer survivors. We hypothesized that post-treatment employment status is an important determinant of survivor well-being and varies by race and age. METHODS: In the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, 1646 employed women with primary breast cancer were longitudinally evaluated for post-diagnosis job loss and overall well-being. Work status was classified as "sustained work," "returned to work," "job loss," or "persistent non-employment." Well-being was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) instrument. Analysis of covariance was used to evaluate the association between work status and well-being (physical, functional, social, and emotional). RESULTS: At 25 months post-diagnosis, 882 (53.6%) reported "sustained work," 330 (20.1%) "returned to work," 162 (9.8%) "job loss," and 272 (16.5%) "persistent non-employment." Nearly half of the study sample (46.4%) experienced interruptions in work during 2 years post-diagnosis. Relative to baseline (5-month FACT-G), women who sustained work or returned to work had higher increases in all well-being domains than women with job loss and persistent non-employment. Job loss was more common among Black than White women (adjusted odds ratio = 3.44; 95% confidence interval 2.37-4.99) and was associated with service/laborer job types, lower education and income, later stage at diagnosis, longer treatment duration, and non-private health insurance. However, independent of clinical factors, job loss was associated with lower well-being in multiple domains. CONCLUSIONS: Work status is commonly disrupted in breast cancer survivors, but sustained work is associated with well-being. Interventions to support women's continued employment after diagnosis are an important dimension of breast cancer survivorship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our findings indicate that work continuation and returning to work may be a useful measure for a range of wellbeing concerns, particularly among Black breast cancer survivors who experience greater job loss.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. METHODS: A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344-2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78,118/QALY, 8,337-59,708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3,012-72,566/QALY, 39,835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158,630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132,200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32,322-76,750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54,122/QALY, 98,790-6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies). CONCLUSION: Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations.

Breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal cancers are among the top causes of cancer related deaths. A substantial proportion of people with these cancers have inherited mutations. The identification of these gene abnormalities could provide people with opportunities to utilize preventive risk reduction surgeries or undertake frequent routine testing for these cancers. However, genetic testing requires healthcare resources and money. Previous reviews on the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing in familial cancers have concluded that targeted screening i.e., selective assessment of people at high-risk could justify the costs of testing. Our evaluation of economic studies in breast and ovarian cancer, however, suggests that genetic testing is cost-effective across a wide variety of situations starting from the screening of all healthy women above 30 years to the testing of women with existing breast or ovarian cancer. Testing in metastatic breast cancer to inform treatment with Olaparib, a drug known to selectively improve survival in people with genetic mutations, was the sole exception where testing was not cost-effective. Contrary to findings for breast or ovarian cancer, testing for colorectal cancer was cost-effective in people with high-risk i.e., family history but inconclusive in other situations. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of testing in prostate cancer is lacking and as a result we were not able to provide advice in this cancer group.

Comparing what the clinician draws on a digital pain map to that of persons who have greater trochanteric pain syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the agreements and differences in pain drawings (pain area, shape and location) between individuals who have greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) and their clinician. METHODS: In this study, 23 patients with GTPS (21 female, pain duration range 8-24 months) underwent clinical evaluation by a registered physiotherapist. Digital 2d full body pain drawings were independently performed by the clinician during the subjective examination and by the patient following the physical examination. Levels of agreement [LoA] in the pain area were assessed with Bland-Altman plots. Differences in pain drawings were assessed visually by overlaying images, and by quantifying the differences in shape and location with the bounding box, and Jaccard index, respectively. RESULTS: Pain areas (/total pixels of the charts) did not differ in size (LoA mean difference less than -0.5%; range -2.35-1.56%) or shape (bounding box p>0.17). However, there was minimal overlap in location (Jaccard index range 0.09-0.18/1 for perfect overlap). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and the clinician displayed differences in location of pain areas, but not size or shape, when they independently performed digital pain drawings. The reasons that underlie and the clinical impact of these differences remains unclear.

Standardization of lower extremity quantitative lymphedema measurements and associated patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancers.

Practice changing standardization of lower extremity lymphedema quantitative measurements with integrated patient reported outcomes will likely refine and redefine the optimal risk-reduction strategies to diminish the devastating limb-related dysfunction and morbidity associated with treatment of gynecologic cancers. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Division of Cancer Prevention brought together a diverse group of cancer treatment, therapy and patient reported outcomes experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science in lymphedema evaluation with the potential goal of incorporating new strategies for optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing gynecologic clinical trials.

Exercise for Individuals With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Adverse Events, Feasibility, and Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety (adverse events), feasibility (recruitment, retention, and adherence) and effectiveness of exercise among individuals with lung cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Ebscohost, MEDLINE, Pubmed, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, Science Direct, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for randomized, controlled, exercise trials involving individuals with lung cancer that were published prior to May 1, 2020. The PEDro scale was used to assess risk of bias, and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was used to classify adverse event severity. Feasibility was assessed by computing median (range) recruitment, retention, and exercise attendance rates. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate adverse event risk between exercise and usual care, and effects on health outcomes. Subgroup effects for exercise mode, supervision, intervention duration, diagnosis or treatment-related factors, and trial quality were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-two trials (n=2109) involving interventions ranging between 1 and 20 weeks were included. Interventions comprised of aerobic (n=13, 41%), resistance (n=1, 3%), combined aerobic and resistance (n=16, 50%) and other exercise (n=2, 6%). There was no difference in the risk of an adverse event between exercise and usual care groups (exercise: n=64 events; usual care: n=61 events]; risk difference: -0.01 [91% CI = -0.02, 0.01]; P = .31). Median recruitment rate was 59% (9%-97%), retention rate was 86% (50%-100%), and adherence rate was 80% (44%-100%). Significant effects of exercise compared to usual care were observed for quality of life, aerobic fitness, upper-body strength, lower-body strength, anxiety, depression, forced expiratory volume, and sleep (standardized mean difference range=0.20-0.59). Subgroup analyses showed that safety, feasibility, and effect was similar irrespective of exercise characteristics, stage at diagnosis, treatment (surgery and chemotherapy), and trial quality. CONCLUSION: For individuals with lung cancer (stages I-IV), the risk of an adverse event with exercise is low. Exercise can be feasibly undertaken post-diagnosis and leads to improvements in health-related outcomes. Together, these findings add weight behind the importance of integrating exercise into standard cancer care, including for this specific cancer type. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Exercise should be considered as part of the treatment for all patients with lung cancer at any stage. Exercise has been shown to be low risk and can be feasibly undertaken by patients. The ideal mode, intensity, frequency, or duration of exercise for all patients with lung cancer is not known. Nonetheless, these findings support endorsement of cancer-specific physical activity guidelines, as well as referral to an exercise professional, such as an exercise physiologist or physiotherapist, for those diagnosed with lung cancer.

Clinical Oncology Society of Australia: Position statement on cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia.

This position statement describes the recommendations of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) regarding management of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia. A multidisciplinary working group completed a review of the literature, focused on evidence-based guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to develop recommendations for the position statement. National consultation of the position statement content was undertaken through COSA members. All people with cancer should be screened for malnutrition and sarcopenia in all health settings at diagnosis and as the clinical situation changes throughout treatment and recovery. People identified as "at risk" of malnutrition or with a high-risk cancer diagnosis or treatment plan should have a comprehensive nutrition assessment; people identified as "at risk" of sarcopenia should have a comprehensive evaluation of muscle status using a combination of assessments for muscle mass, muscle strength and function. All people with cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia should have access to the core components of treatment, including medical nutrition therapy, targeted exercise prescription and physical and psychological symptom management. Treatment for cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia should be individualised, in collaboration with the multidisciplinary team (MDT), and tailored to meet needs at each stage of cancer treatment. Health services should ensure a broad range of health care professionals across the MDT have the skills and confidence to recognise malnutrition and sarcopenia to facilitate timely referrals and treatment. The position statement is expected to provide guidance at a national level to improve the multidisciplinary management of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia.

Moderators of Exercise Effects on Cancer-related Fatigue: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data.

PURPOSE: Fatigue is a common and potentially disabling symptom in patients with cancer. It can often be effectively reduced by exercise. Yet, effects of exercise interventions might differ across subgroups. We conducted a meta-analysis using individual patient data of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate moderators of exercise intervention effects on cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: We used individual patient data from 31 exercise RCT worldwide, representing 4366 patients, of whom 3846 had complete fatigue data. We performed a one-step individual patient data meta-analysis, using linear mixed-effect models to analyze the effects of exercise interventions on fatigue (z score) and to identify demographic, clinical, intervention- and exercise-related moderators. Models were adjusted for baseline fatigue and included a random intercept on study level to account for clustering of patients within studies. We identified potential moderators by testing their interaction with group allocation, using a likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Exercise interventions had statistically significant beneficial effects on fatigue (ß = -0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22 to -0.12). There was no evidence of moderation by demographic or clinical characteristics. Supervised exercise interventions had significantly larger effects on fatigue than unsupervised exercise interventions (ßdifference = -0.18; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.08). Supervised interventions with a duration ≤12 wk showed larger effects on fatigue (ß = -0.29; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.20) than supervised interventions with a longer duration. CONCLUSIONS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we found statistically significant beneficial effects of exercise interventions on fatigue, irrespective of demographic and clinical characteristics. These findings support a role for exercise, preferably supervised exercise interventions, in clinical practice. Reasons for differential effects in duration require further exploration.

Targeting Exercise Interventions to Patients With Cancer in Need: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Background: Exercise effects in cancer patients often appear modest, possibly because interventions rarely target patients most in need. This study investigated the moderator effects of baseline values on the exercise outcomes of fatigue, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, quality of life (QoL), and self-reported physical function (PF) in cancer patients during and post-treatment. Methods: Individual patient data from 34 randomized exercise trials (n = 4519) were pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to study moderator effects of baseline values on exercise intervention outcomes and to determine whether these moderator effects differed by intervention timing (during vs post-treatment). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Moderator effects of baseline fatigue and PF were consistent across intervention timing, with greater effects in patients with worse fatigue (Pinteraction = .05) and worse PF (Pinteraction = .003). Moderator effects of baseline aerobic fitness, muscle strength, and QoL differed by intervention timing. During treatment, effects on aerobic fitness were greater for patients with better baseline aerobic fitness (Pinteraction = .002). Post-treatment, effects on upper (Pinteraction < .001) and lower (Pinteraction = .01) body muscle strength and QoL (Pinteraction < .001) were greater in patients with worse baseline values. Conclusion: Although exercise should be encouraged for most cancer patients during and post-treatments, targeting specific subgroups may be especially beneficial and cost effective. For fatigue and PF, interventions during and post-treatment should target patients with high fatigue and low PF. During treatment, patients experience benefit for muscle strength and QoL regardless of baseline values; however, only patients with low baseline values benefit post-treatment. For aerobic fitness, patients with low baseline values do not appear to benefit from exercise during treatment.

Effects and moderators of exercise on quality of life and physical function in patients with cancer: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 34 RCTs.

This individual patient data meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and physical function (PF) in patients with cancer, and to identify moderator effects of demographic (age, sex, marital status, education), clinical (body mass index, cancer type, presence of metastasis), intervention-related (intervention timing, delivery mode and duration, and type of control group), and exercise-related (exercise frequency, intensity, type, time) characteristics. Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications. Principle investigators of all 69 eligible trials were requested to share IPD from their study. IPD from 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4519 patients) that evaluated the effects of exercise compared to a usual care, wait-list or attention control group on QoL and PF in adult patients with cancer were retrieved and pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of the exercise on post-intervention outcome values (z-score) adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studies by testing interactions. Exercise significantly improved QoL (ß=0.15, 95%CI=0.10;0.20) and PF (ß=0.18, 95%CI=0.13;0.23). The effects were not moderated by demographic, clinical or exercise characteristics. Effects on QoL (ßdifference_in_effect=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (ßdifference_in_effect=0.10, 95%CI=0.01;0.20) were significantly larger for supervised than unsupervised interventions. In conclusion, exercise, and particularly supervised exercise, effectively improves QoL and PF in patients with cancer with different demographic and clinical characteristics during and following treatment. Although effect sizes are small, there is consistent empirical evidence to support implementation of exercise as part of cancer care.

The Living Well after Breast Cancer™ Pilot Trial: a weight loss intervention for women following treatment for breast cancer.

AIM: Obesity is associated with poor prognosis and risk of treatment side-effects in breast cancer survivors. This pilot study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, safety and efficacy of a telephone-delivered weight loss intervention, among women (BMI 25-40 kg/m2 ) following treatment for stage I-III breast cancer, on weight loss (primary outcome), quality of life and treatment-related side-effects (vs usual care). METHODS: Ninety women (mean ± SD age: 55.3 ± 8.7years; BMI: 31.0 ± 4.3 kg/m2 ; 15.9 ± 2.9 months postdiagnosis), recruited from a state-based cancer registry, were randomized to a weight loss (diet and physical activity) intervention (n = 45) or usual care (n = 45). Data collected at baseline and 6 months included weight, body composition, quality of life, fatigue and body image. Acceptability and satisfaction were assessed in intervention participants. RESULTS: Oncologists provided consent to contact 82.6% of patients, with 84.1% of those women contacted and eligible consenting to participate. Compared with usual care, mean weight loss was significantly greater in the intervention arm (-3.1 kg [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.7]; -3.7% baseline weight [95% CI, -6.6 to -0.9]), as were reductions in fat mass (-2.1 kg [95% CI, -4.2 to -0.1]) and waist circumference (-4.0 cm [95% CI, -6.6 to -1.3]). No other statistically significant intervention effects were observed. Participants were highly satisfied with the intervention overall and it is timing in relation to diagnosis/treatment. One reported adverse event (musculoskeletal injury) was attributable to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This weight loss intervention was feasible, acceptable, safe and effective for women 1-2 years after a breast cancer diagnosis. The effect of weight loss on quality of life and treatment-related side-effects should be examined further in fully-powered studies.

A randomized cross-over trial to detect differences in arm volume after low- and heavy-load resistance exercise among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer at risk for arm lymphedema: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to reduce the risk of breast cancer-related arm lymphedema, patients are commonly advised to avoid heavy lifting, impacting activities of daily living and resistance exercise prescription. This advice lacks evidence, with no prospective studies investigating arm volume changes after resistance exercise with heavy loads in this population. The purpose of this study is to determine acute changes in arm volume after a session of low- and heavy-load resistance exercise among women undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer at risk for arm lymphedema. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized cross-over trial. PARTICIPANTS: Women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer who have undergone axillary lymph node dissection will be recruited from rehabilitation centers in the Copenhagen area. INTERVENTION: Participants will be randomly assigned to engage in a low- (two sets of 15-20 repetition maximum) and heavy-load (three sets of 5-8 repetition maximum) upper-extremity resistance exercise session with a one week wash-out period between sessions. OUTCOME: Changes in extracellular fluid (L-Dex score) and arm volume (ml) will be assessed using bioimpedance spectroscopy and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, respectively. Symptom severity related to arm lymphedema will be determined using a visual analogue scale (heaviness, swelling, pain, tightness). Measurements will be taken immediately pre- and post-exercise, and 24- and 72-hours post-exercise. SAMPLE SIZE: A sample size of 20 participants was calculated based on changes in L-Dex scores between baseline and 72-hours post exercise sessions. DISCUSSION: Findings from this study are relevant for exercise prescription guidelines, as well as recommendations regarding participating in activities of daily living for women following surgery for breast cancer and who may be at risk of developing arm lymphedema. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97332727 . Registered 12 February 2015.

Acute Inflammatory Response to Low-, Moderate-, and High-Load Resistance Exercise in Women With Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

Background Resistance exercise is emerging as a potential adjunct therapy to aid in the management of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). However, the mechanisms underlying the relationships between the acute and long-term benefits of resistance exercise on BCRL are not well understood. Purpose To examine the acute inflammatory response to upper-body resistance exercise in women with BCRL and to compare these effects between resistance exercises involving low, moderate, and high loads. The impact on lymphedema status and associated symptoms was also compared. Methods A total of 21 women, 62 ± 10 years old, with BCRL participated in the study. Participants completed low-load (15-20 repetition maximum [RM]), moderate-load (10-12 RM), and high-load (6-8 RM) exercise sessions consisting of 3 sets of 6 upper-body resistance exercises. Sessions were completed in a randomized order separated by a 7- to 10-day wash-out period. Venous blood samples were obtained to assess markers of exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation. Lymphedema status was assessed using bioimpedance spectroscopy and arm circumferences, and associated symptoms were assessed using Visual Analogue Scales for pain, heaviness, and tightness. Measurements were conducted before and 24 hours after the exercise sessions. Results No significant changes in creatine kinase, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α were observed following the 3 resistance exercise sessions. There were no significant changes in arm swelling or symptom severity scores across the 3 resistance exercise conditions. Conclusions The magnitude of acute exercise-induced inflammation following upper-body resistance exercise in women with BCRL does not vary between resistance exercise loads.

Exercise barriers self-efficacy: development and validation of a subcale for individuals with cancer-related lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: No tool exists to measure self-efficacy for overcoming lymphedema-related exercise barriers in individuals with cancer-related lymphedema. However, an existing scale measures confidence to overcome general exercise barriers in cancer survivors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop, validate and assess the reliability of a subscale, to be used in conjunction with the general barriers scale, for determining exercise barriers self-efficacy in individuals facing lymphedema-related exercise barriers. METHODS: A lymphedema-specific exercise barriers self-efficacy subscale was developed and validated using a cohort of 106 cancer survivors with cancer-related lymphedema, from Brisbane, Australia. An initial ten-item lymphedema-specific barrier subscale was developed and tested, with participant feedback and principal components analysis results used to guide development of the final version. Validity and test-retest reliability analyses were conducted on the final subscale. RESULTS: The final lymphedema-specific subscale contained five items. Principal components analysis revealed these items loaded highly (>0.75) on a separate factor when tested with a well-established nine-item general barriers scale. The final five-item subscale demonstrated good construct and criterion validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.67, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A valid and reliable lymphedema-specific subscale has been developed to assess exercise barriers self-efficacy in individuals with cancer-related lymphedema. This scale can be used in conjunction with an existing general exercise barriers scale to enhance exercise adherence in this understudied patient group.

Incidence, risk factors and estimates of a woman's risk of developing secondary lower limb lymphedema and lymphedema-specific supportive care needs in women treated for endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies have assessed the risk and impact of lymphedema among women treated for endometrial cancer. We aimed to quantify cumulative incidence of, and risk factors for developing lymphedema following treatment for endometrial cancer and estimate absolute risk for individuals. Further, we report unmet needs for help with lymphedema-specific issues. METHODS: Women treated for endometrial cancer (n = 1243) were followed-up 3-5 years after diagnosis; a subset of 643 completed a follow-up survey that asked about lymphedema and lymphedema-related support needs. We identified a diagnosis of secondary lymphedema from medical records or self-report. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors and estimates. RESULTS: Overall, 13% of women developed lymphedema. Risk varied markedly with the number of lymph nodes removed and, to a lesser extent, receipt of adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy treatment, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pre-diagnosis). The absolute risk of developing lymphedema was >50% for women with 15+ nodes removed and 2-3 additional risk factors, 30-41% for those with 15+ nodes removed plus 0-1 risk factors or 6-14 nodes removed plus 3 risk factors, but ≤ 8% for women with no nodes removed or 1-5 nodes but no additional risk factors. Over half (55%) of those who developed lymphedema reported unmet need(s), particularly with lymphedema-related costs and pain. CONCLUSION: Lymphedema is common; experienced by one in eight women following endometrial cancer. Women who have undergone lymphadenectomy have very high risks of lymphedema and should be informed how to self-monitor for symptoms. Affected women need greater levels of support.

Racial differences in physical activity among breast cancer survivors: implications for breast cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity after breast cancer diagnosis is associated with improved survival. The current study examined levels of and changes in physical activity after breast cancer diagnosis, overall and by race. METHODS: Phase 3 of the Carolina Breast Cancer Study assessed both pre- and postdiagnosis physical activity levels in a cohort of 1735 women aged 20 years to 74 years who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in 44 counties of North Carolina. Logistic regression and analysis of variance were used to examine whether demographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics were associated with activity levels. RESULTS: Only 35% of study participants met current physical activity guidelines after diagnosis with breast cancer. A decrease in activity after diagnosis was reported by 59% of patients, with the average study participant reducing their activity by 15 metabolic equivalent task (MET) hours (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 12 MET hours-19 MET hours). After adjustment for potential confounders, when compared with white women, African American women were less likely to meet national physical activity guidelines after diagnosis (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.01-1.88) and reported less weekly postdiagnosis physical activity (12 MET hours vs 14 MET hours; P = .13). In adjusted stratified analyses, receipt of treatment was found to be significantly associated with postdiagnosis activity in African American women (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite compelling evidence demonstrating the benefits of physical activity after a diagnosis of breast cancer, it is clear that more work needs to be done to promote physical activity in patients with breast cancer, especially among African American women.

Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The body of evidence related to breast-cancer-related lymphoedema incidence and risk factors has substantially grown and improved in quality over the past decade. We assessed the incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer and explored the evidence available for lymphoedema risk factors. METHODS: We searched Academic Search Elite, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (clinical trials), and Medline for research articles that assessed the incidence or prevalence of, or risk factors for, arm lymphoedema after breast cancer, published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 30, 2012. We extracted incidence data and calculated corresponding exact binomial 95% CIs. We used random effects models to calculate a pooled overall estimate of lymphoedema incidence, with subgroup analyses to assess the effect of different study designs, countries of study origin, diagnostic methods, time since diagnosis, and extent of axillary surgery. We assessed risk factors and collated them into four levels of evidence, depending on consistency of findings and quality and quantity of studies contributing to findings. FINDINGS: 72 studies met the inclusion criteria for the assessment of lymphoedema incidence, giving a pooled estimate of 16.6% (95% CI 13.6-20.2). Our estimate was 21.4% (14.9-29.8) when restricted to data from prospective cohort studies (30 studies). The incidence of arm lymphoedema seemed to increase up to 2 years after diagnosis or surgery of breast cancer (24 studies with time since diagnosis or surgery of 12 to <24 months; 18.9%, 14.2-24.7), was highest when assessed by more than one diagnostic method (nine studies; 28.2%, 11.8-53.5), and was about four times higher in women who had an axillary-lymph-node dissection (18 studies; 19.9%, 13.5-28.2) than it was in those who had sentinel-node biopsy (18 studies; 5.6%, 6.1-7.9). 29 studies met the inclusion criteria for the assessment of risk factors. Risk factors that had a strong level of evidence were extensive surgery (ie, axillary-lymph-node dissection, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, mastectomy) and being overweight or obese. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that more than one in five women who survive breast cancer will develop arm lymphoedema. A clear need exists for improved understanding of contributing risk factors, as well as of prevention and management strategies to reduce the individual and public health burden of this disabling and distressing disorder. FUNDING: The National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia.

Water-based exercise for patients with chronic arm lymphedema: a randomized controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effect of a water-based exercise program on lymphedema status and shoulder range of motion among women with breast cancer-related lymphedema. DESIGN: This was a single-blinded, randomized controlled pilot trial. Twenty-nine eligible breast cancer survivors (median, 10 yrs after surgery) with arm lymphedema (median, 21% interlimb difference) were included and randomized into the intervention (n = 15) or control (n = 14) group. Twenty-five participants completed the study. The intervention was at least twice-weekly water-based exercise for 8 wks, initially supervised but performed independently during the study period. Outcomes of interest were feasibility as measured by retention and adherence; lymphedema status as measured by optoelectronic perometry, bioimpedance spectroscopy, and tissue dielectric constant; and shoulder range of motion as measured by goniometer. RESULTS: Four participants were not measured at postintervention and were not included in the analysis (retention). Four participants in the intervention group did not perform the minimum water-based exercise criteria set (adherence). No effect was found on lymphedema status. Compared with the control group, median range of motion change for flexion was 6 (1-10) degrees (P < 0.001) and 6 (0-15.5) degrees (P = 0.07) for external rotation.A clinically relevant increase in the intervention group was found for 36% in flexion (P ≤ 0.05) and 57% in external rotation (P ≤ 0.05) compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that water-based exercise is feasible for breast cancer survivors with arm lymphedema and that shoulder range of motion can be improved years after cancer treatment has been completed.

Prevalence and prognostic significance of secondary lymphedema following breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The adverse consequences of lymphedema following breast cancer in relation to physical function and quality of life are clear; however, its potential relationship with survival has not been investigated. Our purpose was to determine the prevalence of lymphedema and associated upper-body symptoms at 6 years following breast cancer and to examine the prognostic significance of lymphedema with respect to overall 6-year survival (OS). METHODS AND RESULTS: A population-based sample of Australian women (n = 287) diagnosed with invasive, unilateral breast cancer was followed for a median of 6.6 years and prospectively assessed for lymphedema (using bioimpedance spectroscopy [BIS], sum of arm circumferences [SOAC], and self-reported arm swelling), a range of upper-body symptoms, and vital status. OS was measured from date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate OS and Cox proportional hazards models quantified the risk associated with lymphedema. Approximately 45% of women had reported at least one moderate to extreme symptom at 6.6 years postdiagnosis, while 34% had shown clinical evidence of lymphedema, and 48% reported arm swelling at least once since baseline assessment. A total of 27 (9.4%) women died during the follow-up period, and lymphedema, diagnosed by BIS or SOAC between 6-18 months postdiagnosis, predicted mortality (BIS: HR = 2.5; 95% CI: 0.9, 6.8, p = 0.08; SOAC: 3.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 8.7, p = 0.04). There was no association (HR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.5, 2.6, p = 0.68) between self-reported arm swelling and OS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that lymphedema may influence survival following breast cancer treatment and warrant further investigation in other cancer cohorts and explication of a potential underlying biology.

Safety, feasibility and effects of an individualised walking intervention for women undergoing chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Exercise interventions during adjuvant cancer therapy have been shown to increase functional capacity, relieve fatigue and distress and may assist rates of chemotherapy completion. These studies have been limited to breast, gastric and mixed cancer groups and it is not yet known if a similar intervention is even feasible among women with ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess safety, feasibility and potential effect of a walking intervention in women undergoing chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. METHODS: Women newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer were recruited to participate in an individualised walking intervention throughout chemotherapy and were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Feasibility measures included session adherence, compliance with exercise physiologist prescribed walking targets and self-reported program acceptability. Changes in objective physical functioning (6-minute walk test), self-reported distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), symptoms (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale - Physical) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Ovarian) were calculated, and chemotherapy completion and adverse intervention effects recorded. RESULTS: Seventeen women were enrolled (63% recruitment rate). Mean age was 60 years (SD = 8 years), 88% were diagnosed with FIGO stage III or IV disease, 14 women underwent adjuvant and three neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. On average, women adhered to > 80% of their intervention sessions and complied with 76% of their walking targets, with the majority walking four days a week at moderate intensity for 30 minutes per session. Meaningful improvements were found in physical functioning, physical symptoms, physical well-being and ovarian cancer-specific quality of life. Most women (76%) completed ≥85% of their planned chemotherapy dose. There were no withdrawals or serious adverse events and all women reported the program as being helpful. CONCLUSIONS: These positive preliminary results suggest that this walking intervention for women receiving chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is safe, feasible and acceptable and could be used in development of future work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12609000252213.