Prospective surveillance for breast cancer-related lymphedema (PROTECT)

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidance for the prevention of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL): international Delphi consensus-based recommendations

Background

Developing strategies to prevent breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL) is a critical unmet need because there are no effective interventions to eradicate it once it reaches a chronic state. Certain strategies such as prospective surveillance programs and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction have been reported to be effective in clinical trials. However, a large variation exists in practice based on clinician preference, organizational standards, and local resources.

Methods

A two-round international Delphi consensus process was performed from February 27, 2023 to May 25, 2023 to compile opinions of 55 experts involved in the care and research of breast cancer and lymphoedema on such interventions.

Findings

Axillary lymph node dissection, use of post-operative radiotherapy, relative within-arm volume increase one month after surgery, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, and high body mass index were recommended as the most important risk factors to guide selection of patients for interventions to prevent BCRAL. The panel recommended that prospective surveillance programs should be implemented to screen for and reduce risks of BCRAL where feasible and resources allow. Prophylactic compression sleeves, axillary reverse mapping and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction should be offered for patients who are at risk for developing BCRAL as options where expertise is available and resources allow. Recommendations on axillary management in clinical T1-2, node negative breast cancer patients with 1-2 positive sentinel lymph nodes were also provided by the expert panel. Routine axillary lymph node dissection should not be offered in these patients who receive breast conservation therapy. Axillary radiation instead of axillary lymph node dissection should be considered in the same group of patients undergoing mastectomy.

Interpretation

An individualised approach based on patients' preferences, risk factors for BCRAL, availability of treatment options and expertise of the healthcare team is paramount to ensure patients at risk receive preventive interventions for BCRAL, regardless of where they are receiving care.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding. RJC received investigator grant support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1194051).

Examining the efficacy of treatments for arm lymphedema in breast cancer survivors: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses

Background

Lymphedema affects one in six breast cancer survivors making it a global healthcare challenge. There is considerable debate about the efficacy of different treatments for lymphedema. We aimed to summarize the current evidence for treatments for lymphedema in breast cancer survivors.

Methods

In this overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SRMAs), five databases were searched for SRMAs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting effects of medications, surgery, exercise, laser therapy, acupuncture, kinesio taping, or complex decongestive physiotherapy (CDP) for breast cancer-related lymphedema published from database inception up to March 7, 2023. Data extraction was performed for the SRMAs and RCTs, and SRMAs were appraised with AMSTAR2. Random effects meta-analyses of the RCTs provided estimates of the pooled effects sizes (Hedges' g) for each treatment modality. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020184813.

Findings

1569 studies were identified by the search and eighteen SRMAs with 51 RCTs were included, investigating manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), compression pump, exercise, kinesio taping, laser, and acupuncture. Overall, the methodological quality of the SRMAs was low. SRMAs reached different conclusions for all treatment modalities, except for kinesio taping where the two SRMAs found no effect. The analysis of 40 RCTs with 1970 participants revealed a small effect across all interventions compared to any control (g = 0.20, p = 0.047, I2 = 0.79), corresponding to volume reductions of 119.7 ml (95% CI 135-104) and 88.0 ml (95% CI 99-77) in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and a small effect of exercise (g = 0.26, p = 0.022, I2 = 0.44). The between-group differences in volume reduction were small and did not reach statistical significance for any one treatment modality.

Interpretation

Based on the available data, there is no evidence of superiority of any one treatment on volume reduction nor any solid research refuting these treatments. Thus, definitive conclusions to inform clinical practice about the efficacy of these treatments cannot be drawn. Due to poor-quality evidence, more research is needed to untangle the efficacy of each treatment component for different stages of lymphedema.

Funding

Danish Cancer Society.