Oliveri, Jill M.

Background Lymphedema is an adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that causes swelling and pain in the arm and hand. We tested 2 lymphedema prevention interventions and their impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in a group‐randomized trial at 38 cooperative group sites within the United States. Methods Patients were recruited before breast surgery. Sites were randomly assigned to education‐only (EO) lymphedema prevention or education plus exercise and physical therapy (LEAP). Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in arm volume at any time from baseline to 18 months postsurgery. HRQOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast plus 4 lymphedema items (FACT‐B+4). Longitudinal mixed model regression analysis, adjusting for key demographic and clinical variables, examined participants' HRQOL by intervention group and lymphedema status. Results A total of 547 patients (56% LEAP) were enrolled and completed HRQOL assessments. The results revealed no differences between the interventions in preventing lymphedema ( P = .37) or HRQOL (FACT‐B+4 total score; P = .8777). At 18 months, the presence of lymphedema was associated with HRQOL at borderline significance ( P = .0825). However, African American patients reported greater lymphedema symptoms ( P = .0002) and better emotional functioning ( P = .0335) than patients of other races or ethnicities. Lower HRQOL during the intervention was associated with younger age ( P ≤ .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >0 ( P = .0002), ≥1 positive lymph nodes ( P = .0009), having no education beyond high school ( P < .0001), having undergone chemotherapy ( P = .0242), and having had only axillary node dissection or sentinel node biopsy versus both ( P = .0007). Conclusion The tested interventions did not differ in preventing lymphedema or in HRQOL outcomes. African American women reported greater HRQOL impacts due to lymphedema symptoms than women of other races or ethnicities.

Background Lymphedema affects many women who are treated for breast cancer. We examined the effectiveness of an education‐only (EO) versus education plus sleeve compression/exercise intervention (lymphedema education and prevention [LEAP]) on lymphedema incidence and range of motion (ROM) in a group‐randomized trial across 38 cooperative group sites. Methods The treating institution was randomly assigned to either EO or LEAP by a study statistician. All patients at a treating institution participated in the same intervention (EO or LEAP) to minimize contamination bias. Participants completed surveys, arm volume measurements, and self‐reported ROM assessments before surgery and at 12 and 18 months after surgery. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in limb volume at any time post‐surgery up to 18 months after surgery or diagnosis by a health provider. Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel tests were used to compare lymphedema‐free rates between groups, stratified by lymph node surgery type. Self‐reported ROM differences were compared between groups. Results A total of 554 participants (56% LEAP) were included in the analyses. At 18 months, lymphedema‐free rates were 58% (EO) versus 55% (LEAP) ( P = .37). ROM for both arms was greater in LEAP versus EO at 12 months; by 18 months, most women reported full ROM, regardless of group. In LEAP, only one‐third wore a sleeve ≥75% of the time; 50% performed lymphedema exercises at least weekly. Conclusion Lymphedema incidence did not differ by intervention group at 18 months. Poor adherence in the LEAP group may have contributed. However, physical therapy may speed recovery of ROM. Further research is needed to effectively reduce the incidence and severity of lymphedema in patients who have breast cancer.

123 Background: Lymph node dissection, axillary or sentinel, often results in restrictions of arm movement, including range of motion (ROM), either temporarily or permanently. The objective of this secondary analysis was to determine if a lymphedema (LE) prevention program would also impact ROM in both the affected arm as well as the unaffected arm. Methods: As part of the Lymphedema Education and Prevention study (CALGB 70305), women from participating sites (N=41) were randomized to either the “education only” (n=253) arm (information about LE signs and symptoms and risk reduction strategies) or “education + exercise” (n=315) arm (education plus arm stretching and breathing exercises and a visit with a physical therapist). Self-administered surveys asking for how high the patient can reach with each arm at pre-surgery, 12 and 18 months after surgery were used to assess self-reports of ROM for each arm (5 categories in total: very little, about half, nearly full, overhead, and full). Differences in ROM between study groups for each arm were compared using chi-square tests before surgery, and 12 and 18 months after surgery. Results: Before surgery, women in the “education + exercise” group were less likely to report full ROM for both arms (left: 58% vs 75%; right: 57% vs 76%; p=0.0004 for both arms) compared to women in the “education only” group, while at 12 months, women in the “education + exercise” group reported greater ROM (left: 91% vs 84% p=0.16; right: 90% vs 83%; p=0.02) compared to women in the “education only” group. By 18 months, both groups approached 93% with full ROM for both arms. Conclusions: Women who participated in a LE prevention intervention that included exercise and a visit to a physical therapist regained full ROM in both arms sooner than women who did not receive the exercise intervention. All women receiving lymph node dissection should receive physical therapy to regain ROM quickly after surgery and to help maintain physical functioning. Support: UG1CA189823, UG1CA189817, UG1CA189819, U10CA180790, U10CA180836, U10CA180850, and UL1TR001409; Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.

104 Background: Lymphedema (LE), a side effect of BC treatment, affects 8%–56% of women. The study tested the effectiveness of an education only vs education + exercise intervention on LE incidence in a group randomized trial (NCT00376597) of 38 cooperative group sites. Methods: Newly diagnosed women with stage I-III BC were consented and arm circumference and range of motion were measured pre-surgery. After surgery, patients (pts) were enrolled based on the randomization assignment of their treating institution, stratified by their type of node dissection (sentinel or axillary), and received either: education only: its causes, signs, symptoms and risk reduction strategies, or education + personalized exercise instruction from a physical therapist, with elastic compression garments to wear during heavy arm use and air travel. Pts completed surveys and arm measurements at baseline (BL), 12 and 18 months with the LE endpoint defined as ≥ 10% difference in limb volume at any time from BL to 18 months or physician diagnosis of LE. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests were used to compare the LE-free rate between arms, adjusted for type of biopsy. Logistic regression assessed predictors of LE. Results: 568 pts were enrolled, 45% in education only, and 55% in education + exercise, with 554 (98%) included in the analyses. Pts were on average 57.7 years, White (83%), non-Hispanic (92%) and married (62%). 47% only had sentinel node dissection, 35% had mastectomy, and 37% had chemotherapy. The LE-free rate was 58% in education only vs 55% in education + exercise (CMH p = 0.73). Predictors of LE included surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy, OR = 2.22, p < 0.001) and chemotherapy (no vs yes, OR = 1.73, p = 0.02), after adjusting for BMI and type of node dissection. Only one-third wore the sleeve at least 75% of the time and only 50% did LE exercises at least weekly. Conclusions: There was no difference by intervention arm in LE incidence by 18 months. Poor adherence in the education + exercise arm may have been a factor. Additional analyses will assess quality of life, body image and knowledge about LE by arm. Further research is needed to effectively prevent LE in pts after BC surgery. Research Support: UL1TR001409; U10CA037447, UG1CA189823 Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.