Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions.

PURPOSE: To examine the current evidence on breast lymphedema (BL) diagnosis and treatment after breast-conserving surgery, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research directions. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane, including studies published between 2000 and 2023. References were reviewed manually for eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who underwent breast conserving treatment (surgery ± radiation) for breast cancer, goals of the paper included analyzing or reviewing BL measurement with ultrasound or tissue dielectric constant, or BL treatment. Twenty-seven manuscripts were included in the review. RESULTS: There is variation in incidence, time course, and risk factors for BL. Risk factors for BL included breast size, primary and axillary surgery extent, radiation, and chemotherapy but require further investigation. Diagnostic methods for BL currently rely on patient report and lack standardized criteria. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and ultrasound (US) emerged as promising ambulatory BL assessment tools; however, diagnostic thresholds and validation studies with ICG lymphography are needed to establish clinical utility. The evidence base for treatment of BL is weak, lacking high-quality studies. CONCLUSION: The natural history of BL is not well defined. TDC and US show promise as ambulatory assessment tools for BL; however, further validation with lymphatic imaging is required. BL treatment is not established in the literature. Longitudinal, prospective studies including pre-radiation measurements and validating with lymphatic imaging are required. These data will inform screening, diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatment parameters for patients with BL after breast-conserving surgery and radiation.

Side effects of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients treated for breast cancer.

Lymph node swelling is a side effect of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, a distressing side effect for women treated for breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to present side effects reported by a cohort of patients treated for breast cancer. A survey link was sent to 4945 women who received breast cancer treatment and were prospectively screened for breast cancer-related lymphedema. In total, 621 patients who received an mRNA vaccine and responded to the survey were included in analysis. We assessed the frequency and predictors of side effects. The most frequent side effects reported were injection site soreness, fatigue, generalized muscle soreness, headache, and chills, with median duration ≤ 48 h. Lymph node swelling occurred most often in the axilla ipsilateral to the vaccine. The median duration was 1 week or less after all doses. These data will inform patient education regarding future vaccine doses, including reassurances about which side effects to expect, particularly lymph node swelling which may impact mammograms after vaccination. Type and duration of side effects were similar to that reported by the general population in Phase 3 testing trials of the mRNA vaccines. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04872738 posted May 4, 2021.

Diagnostic Criteria for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity: The Need for Universal Agreement.

With advances in breast cancer treatments and resultant increased survival rates, emphasis has been placed on post-treatment complications such as breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), a chronic, negative sequela of breast cancer treatment. Accurate BCRL diagnosis necessitates longitudinal screening beginning at preoperative baseline. Prospective screening programs incorporating symptoms, objective measurements and clinical examination allow for early detection, early intervention, and improved BCRL prognosis. Currently, varied diagnostic criteria for BCRL exist, and this lack of consensus leads to variation in diagnostic and screening practices across institutions. This review outlines current diagnostic tools, including subjective and objective measurement methods and clinical examination. The merits of different criteria are evaluated and recommendations are made regarding measurement tools and diagnostic criteria for BCRL. Ultimately, the BCRL diagnostic process should be universalized and combine objective measurements, clinical evaluation, and symptoms assessment, and adhere to the best practices of the measurement tools used.

Weight loss does not decrease risk of breast cancer-related arm lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between postoperative weight change and breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). METHODS: In this cohort study, 1161 women underwent unilateral breast surgery for breast cancer from 2005 to 2020 and were prospectively screened for BCRL. Arm volume measurements were obtained via an optoelectronic perometer preoperatively, postoperatively, and in the follow-up setting every 6 to 12 months. Mean follow-up from preoperative baseline was 49.1 months. The main outcome was BCRL, defined as a relative volume change of the ipsilateral arm of ≥10% at least 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients (7.9%) developed BCRL. Net weight loss versus net weight gain from baseline to last follow-up was not protective against developing BCRL (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-2.13; P = .152). CONCLUSIONS: Although weight loss may be recommended as part of an individualized lifestyle management program for overall health, weight loss alone may not decrease the risk of developing BCRL.

Subclinical Lymphedema After Treatment for Breast Cancer: Risk of Progression and Considerations for Early Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a devastating complication of breast cancer (BC) treatment. The authors hypothesized that identifying subclinical lymphedema (SCL) presents an opportunity to prevent BCRL development. They aimed to assess rates of SCL progression (relative volume change [RVC], 5-10%) to BCRL (RVC, ≥10%) in women undergoing axillary surgery for BC via axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). METHODS: Patients treated for BC were prospectively screened at preoperative baseline and throughout the follow-up period using the perometer. The cohort was stratified according to nodal surgery (ALND or SLNB) to analyze rates of progression to BCRL. RESULTS: The study cohort included 1790 patients. Of the 1359 patients who underwent SLNB, 331 (24.4%) experienced SCL, with 38 (11.5%) of these patients progressing to BCRL. Of the 431 patients who underwent ALND, 171 (39.7%) experienced SCL, with 67 (39.2%) of these patients progressing to BCRL. Relative to the patients without SCL, those more likely to experience BCRL were the ALND patients with early SCL (< 3 months postoperatively; hazard ratio [HR], 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-4.27; p = 0.0002) or late SCL (≥3 months postoperatively; HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.95-5.05; p < 0.0001) and the SLNB patients with early SCL (HR, 6.75; 95% CI, 3.8-11.98; p < 0.0001 or late SCL (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.50; p = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that patients with SCL after axillary nodal surgery for BC are more likely to progress to BCRL than those who do not experience SCL. This presents a tremendous opportunity for early intervention to prevent BCRL and improve the quality of life for women treated for BC.

Use of technology to facilitate a prospective surveillance program for breast cancer-related lymphedema at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a negative sequela of breast cancer (BC) caused by trauma to the lymphatic system during surgery or radiation to the axillary lymph nodes. BCRL affects approximately one in five patients treated for BC, and patients are at a lifelong risk for BCRL after treatment. Early diagnosis of BCRL may prevent its progression and reduce negative effects on quality of life, necessitating comprehensive prospective screening. This paper provides an overview of technology that may be used as part of a BCRL screening program, including objective measures such as perometry, bioimpedance spectroscopy, tissue tonometry, and three-dimensional optical imaging. Furthermore, this paper comprehensively reviews the technology incorporated into the established prospective screening program at Massachusetts General Hospital. Our prospective screening program consists of longitudinal measurements via perometry, symptoms assessment, and clinical examination by a certified lymphedema therapist (CLT) as needed. Discussion about use of perometry within the screening program and incorporation of arm volume measurements into equations to determine change over time and accurate diagnosis is included [relative volume change (RVC) and weight-adjusted change (WAC) equations]. Use of technology throughout the program is discussed, including a HIPPA-compliant online research database, the patient's electronic medical record, and incorporation of BCRL-related symptoms [BC and lymphedema symptom experience index (BCLE-SEI) survey]. Ultimately, both subjective and objective data are used to inform BCRL diagnosis and treatment by the CLT. In conclusion, the role of technology in facilitating BCRL screening is indispensable, and the continued development of objective assessment methods that are not only reliable and valid, but also cost-effective and portable will help establish BCRL screening as the standard of care for patients treated for BC.

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.

Integrating Symptoms Into the Diagnostic Criteria for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: Applying Results From a Prospective Surveillance Program.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to determine whether patients reporting symptoms are more likely to develop lymphedema and to describe the temporal relationship between symptom onset and lymphedema. METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 647 women treated for breast cancer and screened for lymphedema using arm volume measurements and subjective questionnaires (n = 647; 2284 questionnaires [median 3.5 per patient, range = 1-24]). Primary study outcome was lymphedema (relative volume change ≥10%). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate cumulative lymphedema incidence. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between symptoms, other risk factors, and lymphedema. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients (9.9%) developed lymphedema. On multivariable analysis, patients reporting increased arm size (hazard ratio = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.62-5.89) were more likely to progress to lymphedema than those who did not report this symptom. Of those who developed lymphedema, 37 (58%) reported an increased arm size a median of 6.1 months before lymphedema onset (range = 68.6 months before to 50.2 months after lymphedema onset). CONCLUSION: Patients at risk of lymphedema who report increased arm size might do so prior to lymphedema onset and are at 3 times the risk of lymphedema as patients not reporting this symptom. Even without objective or observable edema, these patients should be followed vigilantly and considered for early intervention. Symptoms should be incorporated into screening and diagnostic criteria for lymphedema. IMPACT: This study shows that patients at risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema who report increased arm size should be considered at high risk for progression to lymphedema-even without edema on measurement or clinical examination-and should be followed vigilantly, with consideration of early intervention. LAY SUMMARY: If you are at risk of lymphedema and you feel as though your arm size has increased, you might develop lymphedema, and you are at 3 times the risk of lymphedema as patients not reporting this symptom. Even without measurable or observable edema, you should be followed vigilantly and consider early intervention.

Quantifying the Impact of Axillary Surgery and Nodal Irradiation on Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema and Local Tumor Control: Long-Term Results From a Prospective Screening Trial.

PURPOSE: To independently evaluate the impact of axillary surgery type and regional lymph node radiation (RLNR) on breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) rates in patients with breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2018, 1,815 patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in a lymphedema screening trial. Patients were divided into the following 4 groups according to axillary surgery approach: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone, SLNB+RLNR, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) alone, and ALND+RLNR. A perometer was used to objectively assess limb volume. All patients received baseline preoperative and follow-up measurements after treatment. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥ 10% relative increase in arm volume arising > 3 months postoperatively. The primary end point was the BCRL rate across the groups. Secondary end points were 5-year locoregional control and disease-free-survival. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,340 patients with SLNB alone, 121 with SLNB+RLNR, 91 with ALND alone, and 263 with ALND+RLNR. The overall median follow-up time after diagnosis was 52.7 months for the entire cohort. The 5-year cumulative incidence rates of BCRL were 30.1%, 24.9%, 10.7%, and 8.0% for ALND+RLNR, ALND alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB alone, respectively. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for age, body mass index, surgery, and reconstruction type showed that the ALND-alone group had a significantly higher BCRL risk (hazard ratio [HR], 2.66; P = .02) compared with the SLNB+RLNR group. There was no significant difference in BCRL risk between the ALND+RLNR and ALND-alone groups (HR, 1.20; P = .49) and between the SLNB-alone and SLNB+RLNR groups (HR, 1.33; P = .44). The 5-year locoregional control rates were similar for the ALND+RLNR, ALND-alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB-alone groups (2.8%, 3.8%, 0%, and 2.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although RLNR adds to the risk of lymphedema, the main risk factor is the type of axillary surgery used.

Patients who report cording after breast cancer surgery are at higher risk of lymphedema: Results from a large prospective screening cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the association between cording and breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL); describe time course, location, symptoms and functional impairments. METHODS: A total of 1181 patients were prospectively screened for BCRL after breast cancer (BC) surgery, including patient-reported outcome measures (4193) and perometric arm volume measurements (BCRL defined as relative or weight-adjusted volume change [RVC or WAC] ≥10% ≥3 months postoperatively). RESULTS: A total of 374/1181 patients (31.7%) reported cording first a median of 4.5 months postoperatively, and were more likely to: have body mass index less than 30 kg/m2 ; be less than 55 years of age; have had mastectomy, axillary lymph node dissection, regional lymph node radiation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (all P < .001), or RVC/WAC ≥10% (P = .002). Patients who reported cording had 2.4 times the odds of developing BCRL compared to those who did not (odds ratio = 2.40; 95% confidence interval = 1.40-4.11; P = .002), and most frequently reported these symptoms: tenderness (61.2%), aching (60.7%), and firmness/tightness (59.8%). On multivariable analysis, cording was significantly correlated with functional difficulty for 17 actions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently present with cording, potentially months after BC surgery. Risk factors for and symptoms of cording are identified, and treatment is recommended. Patients reporting cording are at higher risk of BCRL, therefore, cording should be incorporated into BCRL risk stratification.

Lymphoedema screening: setting the standard.

Existing literature which is changing practice should be scrutinised, in the interest of all women at risk for lymphoedema after breast cancer (BC). Bundred et al.'s prospective, multicentre trial of 1100 women made several solid findings, and novel screening recommendations presented may assist in incorporating lymphoedema screening into standard of care.

Incidence of peripheral edema in patients receiving PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 inhibitors for metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated development of edema in patients receiving PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: We reviewed medical records of 160 patients receiving targeted therapy with PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 inhibitors to treat MBC (n = 160; 185 treatment occurrences). Clinicopathologic data, treatment details, and edema incidence were recorded. RESULTS: Edema incidence was 43.1% (69/160) overall and 25.6% (41/160) in the upper extremity ipsilateral to the treated breast. In 185 therapy regimens administered, 6.8% of patients on a PI3K inhibitor, 8.8% of patients on an mTOR inhibitor, and 9.2% of patients on a CDK4/6 inhibitor experienced new onset or worsened preexisting upper extremity edema. Further, 9.1% of patients on a PI3K inhibitor, 18.8% of patients on an mTOR inhibitor, and 10.5% of patients on a CDK4/6 inhibitor experienced new onset or worsened preexisting edema elsewhere in the body. Multivariate logistic regression showed that, beyond the established breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) risk factors [axillary lymph node dissection (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.69, p = 0.020), regional lymph node irradiation (OR 6.47, p < 0.001), and body-mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 (OR 3.46, p = 0.006)], a relative decrease in serum albumin after 3 months of treatment increased risk of developing edema (OR 2.07, p = 0.062). Neither duration nor type of therapy were significant risk factors for edema. CONCLUSION: PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 inhibitors may influence the development of edema, which may cause or exacerbate progression of BCRL in patients with MBC. The varied incidence of edema between therapeutic regimens warrants vigilant monitoring of patients treated with these therapies, especially those at high risk of developing BCRL.