Does Manual Lymphatic Drainage Add Value in Reducing Suprafascial Fluid Accumulation and Skin Elasticity in Patients With Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema?

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.

Advances in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema

PURPOSE

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) represents a lifelong risk for breast cancer survivors and once acquired becomes a lifelong burden. This review summarizes current BCRL prevention and treatment strategies.

FINDINGS

Risk factors for BCRL have been extensively studied and their identification has affected breast cancer treatment practice, with sentinel lymph node removal now standard of care for patients with early stage breast cancer without sentinel lymph node metastases. Early surveillance and timely management aim to reduce BCRL incidence and progression, and are further facilitated by patient education, which many breast cancer survivors report not having adequately received. Surgical approaches to BCRL prevention include axillary reverse mapping, lymphatic microsurgical preventative healing (LYMPHA) and Simplified LYMPHA (SLYMPHA). Complete decongestive therapy (CDT) remains the standard of care for patients with BCRL. Among CDT components, facilitating manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) using indocyanine green fluorescence lymphography has been proposed. Intermittent pneumatic compression, nonpneumatic active compression devices, and low-level laser therapy appear promising in lymphedema management. Reconstructive microsurgical techniques such as lymphovenous anastomosis and vascular lymph node transfer are growing surgical considerations for patients as well as liposuction-based procedures for addressing fatty fibrosis formation from chronic lymphedema. Long-term self-management adherence remains problematic, and lack of diagnosis and measurement consensus precludes a comparison of outcomes. Currently, no pharmacological approaches have proven successful.

CONCLUSION

Progress in prevention and treatment of BCRL continues, requiring advances in early diagnosis, patient education, expert consensus and novel treatments designed for lymphatic rehabilitation following insults.

The Effectiveness of Fluoroscopy-Guided Manual Lymph Drainage as Part of Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy on the Superficial Lymphatic Architecture in Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphoedema: A Randomised Controlled Trial

The objective of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of fluoroscopy-guided manual lymph drainage (MLD), as part of decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT), on the superficial lymphatic architecture in patients with chronic mild to moderate breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL). This trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial involving 194 participants with BCRL. Participants were randomised into (1) DLT with fluoroscopy-guided MLD (intervention group), (2) DLT with traditional MLD (control group), or (3) DLT with placebo MLD (placebo group). Superficial lymphatic architecture was evaluated as a secondary outcome, visualised by ICG lymphofluoroscopy at the baseline (B0), post-intensive (P), and post-maintenance phases (P6). Variables were (1) number of efferent superficial lymphatic vessels leaving the dermal backflow region, (2) total dermal backflow score, and (3) number of superficial lymph nodes. The traditional MLD group showed a significant decrease in the number of efferent superficial lymphatic vessels at P (p = 0.026), and of the total dermal backflow score at P6 (p = 0.042). The fluoroscopy-guided MLD and placebo group showed significant decreases in the total dermal backflow score at P (p < 0.001 and p = 0.044, respectively) and at P6 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively); the placebo MLD group showed a significant decrease in the total number of lymph nodes at P (p = 0.008). However, there were no significant between-group differences for the changes in these variables. In conclusion, based on lymphatic architecture outcomes, the added value of MLD, in addition to the other parts of DLT, could not be demonstrated in patients with chronic mild to moderate BCRL.