Impact on Health-Related quality of life after wearing compression garment or not for six months in women with mild breast cancer-related arm lymphedema. A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Women with mild breast cancer-related arm lymphedema (BCRAL) mostly receive treatment with compression garments and instructions in self-care to prevent the progression of lymphedema. However, wearing a compression garment may be experienced as negative and may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL) more than the lymphedema itself. The aim of this study was to investigate if there is a difference in lymphedema-specific HRQOL, between women with mild BCRAL wearing compression garments or not for 6 months. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants with mild BCRAL (Lymphedema relative volume <10%) rated their HRQOL by the Lymphedema Quality of Life Inventory (LyQLI), 6 months after diagnosis and being randomized to compression group (CG) or non-compression group (NCG). Both groups received self-care instructions, and the CG was treated with a standard compression garment, compression class 1. Data from 51 women (30 in the CG and 21 in the NCG), were analyzed. RESULTS: Both the CG and the NCG experienced a low negative impact on HRQOL in physical, psychosocial, and practical domains (score <1). However, the CG experienced a higher negative impact on median HRQOL in the practical domain compared to the NCG, 0.23/0.08 respectively, (p = 0.026). In the specific items, more participants in the CG reported a negative impact on HRQOL compared to the NCG in employment activities 23%/0%, (p = 0.032), embarrassment by lymphedema/compression garments 33%/5%, (p = 0.017), feeling discomfort/embarrassment while doing sports and hobbies 30%/5%, (p = 0.034) and having to answer questions about the lymphedema 27%/0% (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Overall, the lymphedema-specific HRQOL was high after 6 months in women with mild lymphedema, with only a minor difference between the groups. Some women may however perceive practical and emotional issues with the compression garment. These aspects should be considered in patient education and when planning/evaluating treatment. Trial registration: ISRCTN51918431.

Early intervention with compression garments prevents progression in mild breast cancer-related arm lymphedema: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and compression treatment are important to prevent progression in breast cancer-related arm lymphedema (BCRAL). However, some mild BCRAL can be reversible, and therefore, compression treatment may not be needed. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion of women with mild BCRAL showing progression/no progression of lymphedema after treatment with or without compression garments, differences in changes of lymphedema relative volume (LRV), local tissue water and subjective symptoms during 6 months. Also, adherence to self-care was examined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-five women diagnosed with mild BCRAL were randomized to a compression group (CG) or noncompression group (NCG). Both groups received self-care instructions, and the CG were treated with a standard compression garment (ccl 1). Women in the NCG who progressed in LRV ≥2%, or exceeded 10% dropped out, and received appropriate treatment. The proportion showing progression/no progression of LRV, and changes in LRV was measured by Water Displacement Method. Changes in local tissue water were measured by Tissue Dielectric Constant (TDC), subjective symptoms by Visual Analogue Scale, and self-care by a questionnaire. RESULTS: A smaller proportion of LRV progression was found in the CG compared to the NCG at 1, 2 and 6 months follow-up (p ≤ 0.013). At 6 months, 16% had progression of LRV in the CG, compared to 57% in the NCG, (p = 0.001). Thus, 43% in the NCG showed no progression and could manage without compression. Also, CG had a larger reduction in LRV, at all time-points (p ≤ 0.005), and in the highest TDC ratio, when same site followed, at 6 months (p = 0.025). Subjective symptoms did not differ between the groups, except at 1 month, where the CG experienced more reduced tension (p = 0.008). There were no differences in adherence to self-care. CONCLUSION: Early treatment with compression garment can prevent progression in mild BCRAL. Trial registration: ISRCT nr ISRCTN51918431.

Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: More than one in five patients who undergo treatment for breast cancer will develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BCRL can occur as a result of breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. BCRL can negatively impact comfort, function, and quality of life (QoL). Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), a type of hands-on therapy, is frequently used for BCRL and often as part of complex decongestive therapy (CDT). CDT is a fourfold conservative treatment which includes MLD, compression therapy (consisting of compression bandages, compression sleeves, or other types of compression garments), skin care, and lymph-reducing exercises (LREs). Phase 1 of CDT is to reduce swelling; Phase 2 is to maintain the reduced swelling. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of MLD in treating BCRL. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform), and Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register from root to 24 May 2013. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of women with BCRL. The intervention was MLD. The primary outcomes were (1) volumetric changes, (2) adverse events. Secondary outcomes were (1) function, (2) subjective sensations, (3) QoL, (4) cost of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on three volumetric outcomes. (1) LE (lymphedema) volume was defined as the amount of excess fluid left in the arm after treatment, calculated as volume in mL of affected arm post-treatment minus unaffected arm post-treatment. (2) Volume reduction was defined as the amount of fluid reduction in mL from before to after treatment calculated as the pretreatment LE volume of the affected arm minus the post-treatment LE volume of the affected arm. (3) Per cent reduction was defined as the proportion of fluid reduced relative to the baseline excess volume, calculated as volume reduction divided by baseline LE volume multiplied by 100. We entered trial data into Review Manger 5.2 (RevMan), pooled data using a fixed-effect model, and analyzed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also explored subgroups to determine whether mild BCRL compared to moderate or severe BCRL, and BCRL less than a year compared to more than a year was associated with a better response to MLD. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included. Based on similar designs, trials clustered in three categories.(1) MLD + standard physiotherapy versus standard physiotherapy (one trial) showed significant improvements in both groups from baseline but no significant between-groups differences for per cent reduction.(2) MLD + compression bandaging versus compression bandaging (two trials) showed significant per cent reductions of 30% to 38.6% for compression bandaging alone, and an additional 7.11% reduction for MLD (MD 7.11%, 95% CI 1.75% to 12.47%; two RCTs; 83 participants). Volume reduction was borderline significant (P = 0.06). LE volume was not significant. Subgroup analyses was significant showing that participants with mild-to-moderate BCRL were better responders to MLD than were moderate-to-severe participants.(3) MLD + compression therapy versus nonMLD treatment + compression therapy (three trials) were too varied to pool. One of the trials compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus pneumatic pump. Volume reduction was statistically significant favoring MLD (MD 47.00 mL, 95% CI 15.25 mL to 78.75 mL; 1 RCT; 24 participants), per cent reduction was borderline significant (P=0.07), and LE volume was not significant. A second trial compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus self-administered simple lymphatic drainage (SLD), and was significant for MLD for LE volume (MD -230.00 mL, 95% CI -450.84 mL to -9.16 mL; 1 RCT; 31 participants) but not for volume reduction or per cent reduction. A third trial of MLD + compression bandaging versus SLD + compression bandaging was not significant (P = 0.10) for per cent reduction, the only outcome measured (MD 11.80%, 95% CI -2.47% to 26.07%, 28 participants).MLD was well tolerated and safe in all trials.Two trials measured function as range of motion with conflicting results. One trial reported significant within-groups gains for both groups, but no between-groups differences. The other trial reported there were no significant within-groups gains and did not report between-groups results. One trial measured strength and reported no significant changes in either group.Two trials measured QoL, but results were not usable because one trial did not report any results, and the other trial did not report between-groups results.Four trials measured sensations such as pain and heaviness. Overall, the sensations were significantly reduced in both groups over baseline, but with no between-groups differences. No trials reported cost of care.Trials were small ranging from 24 to 45 participants. Most trials appeared to randomize participants adequately. However, in four trials the person measuring the swelling knew what treatment the participants were receiving, and this could have biased results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MLD is safe and may offer additional benefit to compression bandaging for swelling reduction. Compared to individuals with moderate-to-severe BCRL, those with mild-to-moderate BCRL may be the ones who benefit from adding MLD to an intensive course of treatment with compression bandaging. This finding, however, needs to be confirmed by randomized data.In trials where MLD and sleeve were compared with a nonMLD treatment and sleeve, volumetric outcomes were inconsistent within the same trial. Research is needed to identify the most clinically meaningful volumetric measurement, to incorporate newer technologies in LE assessment, and to assess other clinically relevant outcomes such as fibrotic tissue formation.Findings were contradictory for function (range of motion), and inconclusive for quality of life.For symptoms such as pain and heaviness, 60% to 80% of participants reported feeling better regardless of which treatment they received.One-year follow-up suggests that once swelling had been reduced, participants were likely to keep their swelling down if they continued to use a custom-made sleeve.