Immediate Implant Reconstruction Is Associated With a Reduced Risk of Lymphedema Compared to Mastectomy Alone: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the risk of lymphedema associated with immediate breast reconstruction compared to mastectomy alone. BACKGROUND: Immediate breast reconstruction is increasingly performed at the time of mastectomy. Few studies have examined whether breast reconstruction impacts development of lymphedema. METHODS: A total of 616 patients with breast cancer who underwent 891 mastectomies between 2005 and 2013 were prospectively screened for lymphedema at our institution, with 22.2 months' median follow-up. Mastectomies were categorized as immediate implant, immediate autologous, or no reconstruction. Arm measurements were performed preoperatively and during postoperative follow-up using a Perometer. Lymphedema was defined as 10% or more arm volume increase compared to preoperative. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to determine lymphedema rates and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 891 mastectomies, 65% (580/891) had immediate implant, 11% (101/891) immediate autologous, and 24% (210/891) no reconstruction. The two-year cumulative incidence of lymphedema was as follows: 4.08% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.59-6.41%] implant, 9.89% (95% CI: 4.98-19.1%) autologous, and 26.7% (95% CI: 20.4-34.4%) no reconstruction. By multivariate analysis, immediate implant [hazards ratio (HR): 0.352, P < 0.0001] but not autologous (HR: 0.706, P = 0.2151) reconstruction was associated with a significantly reduced risk of lymphedema compared to no reconstruction. Axillary lymph node dissection (P < 0.0001), higher body mass index (P < 0.0001), and greater number of nodes dissected (P = 0.0324) were associated with increased lymphedema risk. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study suggests that in patients for whom implant-based reconstruction is available, immediate implant reconstruction does not increase the risk of lymphedema compared to mastectomy alone.

The need for preoperative baseline arm measurement to accurately quantify breast cancer-related lymphedema.

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a feared outcome of breast cancer treatment, yet the push for early screening is hampered by a lack of standardized quantification. We sought to determine the necessity of preoperative baseline in accounting for temporal changes of upper extremity volume. 1028 women with unilateral breast cancer were prospectively screened for lymphedema by perometry. Thresholds were defined: relative volume change (RVC) ≥10 % for clinically significant lymphedema and ≥5 % including subclinical lymphedema. The first postoperative measurement (pseudo-baseline) simulated the case of no baseline. McNemar's test and binomial logistic regression models were used to analyze BCRL misdiagnoses. Preoperatively, 28.3 and 2.9 % of patients had arm asymmetry of ≥5 and 10 %, respectively. Without baseline, 41.6 % of patients were underdiagnosed and 40.1 % overdiagnosed at RVC ≥ 5 %, increasing to 50.0 and 54.8 % at RVC ≥ 10 %. Increased pseudo-baseline asymmetry, increased weight change between baselines, hormonal therapy, dominant use of contralateral arm, and not receiving axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) were associated with increased risk of underdiagnosis at RVC ≥ 5 %; not receiving regional lymph node radiation was significant at RVC ≥ 10 %. Increased pseudo-baseline asymmetry, not receiving ALND, and dominant use of ipsilateral arm were associated with overdiagnosis at RVC ≥ 5 %; increased pseudo-baseline asymmetry and not receiving ALND were significant at RVC ≥ 10 %. The use of a postoperative proxy even early after treatment results in poor sensitivity for identifying BCRL. Providers with access to patients before surgery should consider the consequent need for proper baseline, with specific strategy tailored by institution.

Impact of adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy on development of breast cancer-related lymphedema: results from a large prospective cohort.

Taxane-based chemotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer is associated with fluid retention in the extremities; however, its association with development of breast cancer-related lymphedema is unclear. We sought to determine if adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy increased risk of lymphedema or mild swelling of the upper extremity. 1121 patients with unilateral breast cancer were prospectively screened for lymphedema with perometer measurements. Lymphedema was defined as a relative volume change (RVC) of ≥10 % from preoperative baseline. Mild swelling was defined as RVC 5- <10 %. Clinicopathologic characteristics were obtained via medical record review. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to determine lymphedema rates and risk factors. 29 % (324/1121) of patients were treated with adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy. The 2-year cumulative incidence of lymphedema in the overall cohort was 5.27 %. By multivariate analysis, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) (p < 0.0001), higher body mass index (p = 0.0007), and older age at surgery (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with increased risk of lymphedema; however, taxane chemotherapy was not significant when compared to no chemotherapy and non-taxane chemotherapy (HR 1.14, p = 0.62; HR 1.56, p = 0.40, respectively). Chemotherapy with docetaxel was significantly associated with mild swelling on multivariate analysis in comparison to both no chemotherapy and non-taxane chemotherapy groups (HR 1.63, p = 0.0098; HR 2.15, p = 0.02, respectively). Patients who receive taxane-based chemotherapy are not at an increased risk of lymphedema compared to patients receiving no chemotherapy or non-taxane adjuvant chemotherapy. Those treated with docetaxel may experience mild swelling, but this does not translate into subsequent lymphedema.

The impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema on the ability to perform upper extremity activities of daily living.

We sought to assess the association of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) with the ability to perform upper extremity activities of daily living (ADL) in our patient population. 324 breast cancer patients who had received treatment for unilateral breast cancer at our institution between 2005 and 2014 were prospectively screened for lymphedema. Bilateral arm measurements were performed pre-operatively and during post-operative follow-up using a Perometer. Patients completed an extensive quality of life (QOL) questionnaire at the time of each study assessment. Lymphedema was defined as a relative volume change (RVC) of ≥10% from the patient's pre-operative baseline measurement. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between post-operative arm function score (as a continuous variable) and RVC, demographic, clinical, and QOL factors. By multivariate analysis, greater fear of lymphedema (p < 0.0001), more pain (p < 0.0001), body mass index >25 (p = 0.0015), mastectomy (p = 0.0001), and having an axillary node dissection (p = 0.0045) were all associated with lower functional scores. Higher emotional well-being score (p < 0.0001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.0005) were associated with higher post-operative functional score. Neither low-level volume changes (5-10 % RVC) nor BCRL (RVC ≥10 %) were associated with ability to perform upper extremity ADL as measured by self-report (p = 0.99, p = 0.79). This prospective study demonstrates that low-level changes in arm volume (RVC 5-10 %) as well as clinically significant BCRL (RVC ≥10 %) did not impact the self-reported ability to use the affected extremity for ADL. These findings may help to inform clinicians and patients on the importance of prospective screening for lymphedema and QOL which enables early detection and intervention.

Hand Edema in Patients at Risk of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: Health Professionals Should Take Notice.

Background: There is little research on hand edema in the population at risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Objectives: Study aims included reporting potential importance of hand edema (HE) as a risk factor for progression of edema in patients treated for breast cancer at risk for BCRL, reporting risk factors for BCRL, and reporting treatment of HE. Design/Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 9 patients treated for breast cancer in Massachusetts General Hospital's lymphedema screening program who presented with isolated HE. Limb volumes via perometry, BCRL risk factors, and HE treatment are reported. Results: Edema was mostly isolated to the hand. Three patients had arm edema >5% on perometry; and 2 of these had edema outside the hand on clinical examination. Patients were at high risk of BCRL with an average of 2.9/5 known risk factors. Arm edema progressed to >10% in 2 high-risk patients. Treatment resulted in an average hand volume reduction of 10.2% via perometry and improvement upon clinical examination. Limitations: The small sample size and lack of validated measures of subjective data were limitations. Conclusions: In this cohort, patients with HE carried significant risk factors for BCRL. Two out of 9 (22%), both carrying ≥4/5 risk factors, progressed to edema >10%. Isolated HE may be a prognostic factor for edema progression in patients treated for breast cancer at risk for BCRL. Further research is warranted.

Diagnostic Methods, Risk Factors, Prevention, and Management of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: Past, Present, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic, adverse, and much feared complication of breast cancer treatment, which affects approximately 20% of patients following breast cancer treatment. BCRL has a tremendous impact on breast cancer survivors, including physical impairments and significant psychological consequences. The intent of this review is to discuss recent studies and analyses regarding the risk factors, diagnosis, prevention through early screening and intervention, and management of BCRL. RECENT FINDINGS: Highly-evidenced risk factors for BCRL include axillary lymph node dissection, lack of reconstruction, radiation to the lymph nodes, high BMI at diagnosis, weight fluctuations during and after treatment, subclinical edema within and beyond 3 months after surgery, and cellulitis in the at-risk arm. Avoidance of potential risk factors can serve as a method of prevention. Through establishing a screening program by which breast cancer patients are measured pre-operatively and at follow-ups, are objectively assessed through a weight-adjusted analysis, and are clinically assessed for signs and symptoms, BCRL can be tracked accurately and treated effectively. Management of BCRL is done by a trained professional, with research mounting towards the use of compression bandaging as a first line intervention against BCRL. Finally, exercise is safe for breast cancer patients with and without BCRL and does not incite or exacerbate symptoms of BCRL. SUMMARY: Recent research has shed light on BCRL risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and management. We hope that education on these aspects of BCRL will promote an informed, consistent approach and encourage additional research in this field to improve patient outcomes and quality of life in breast cancer survivors.

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.

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.