Cheville, Andrea

AbstractThe majority of kidney transplant recipients die from cardiovascular events. Physical activity may be a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease following transplant. The goal of our study was to examine adherence to a physical activity intervention following kidney transplant and its impact on metabolic parameters. All patients who received a kidney transplant at our center between 12/2010 and 12/2011 received usual care (n = 162), while patients transplanted between 12/2011 and 1/2013 received a 90‐day pedometer‐based physical activity intervention (n = 145). Metabolic parameters were assessed at four and 12 months post‐transplant. Baseline demographics and clinical management were similar between cohorts. Adherence to the prescription was 36.5%. Patients in the physical activity cohort had lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure four months post‐transplant compared to the usual care cohort (122 ± 18 vs. 126 ± 16 mmHg, p = 0.049 and 73 ± 10 vs. 77 ± 9, p = 0.004) and less impaired fasting glucose (20.7% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.04). Twelve‐month outcomes were not different between cohorts. Over one‐third of our cohort adhered to a pedometer‐based physical activity intervention following kidney transplant, and the intervention was associated with improved metabolic parameters. Further study of post‐transplant exercise interventions and methods to optimize long‐term adherence are needed.

Background— Chronic disease can contribute to functional disability, which can degrade quality of life. However, the prevalence of functional disability and its association with outcomes among patients with heart failure requires further study. Methods and Results— Southeastern Minnesota residents with heart failure were enrolled from September 2003 through January 2012 into a cohort study with follow-up through December 2012. Difficulty with 9 activities of daily living (ADLs) was assessed by a questionnaire. Patients were divided into 3 categories of ADL difficulty (no/minimal, moderate, severe). The associations of ADL difficulty with mortality and hospitalization were assessed using Cox and Andersen-Gill models. Among 1128 patients (mean age, 74.7 years; 49.2% female), a majority (59.4%) reported difficulty with one or more ADLs at enrollment, with 272 (24.1%) and 146 (12.9%) experiencing moderate and severe difficulty, respectively. After a mean (SD) follow-up of 3.2 (2.4) years, 614 patients (54.4%) had died. Mortality increased with increasing ADL difficulty; the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death was 1.49 (1.22–1.82) and 2.26 (1.79–2.86) for those with moderate and severe difficulty, respectively, compared to those with no/minimal difficulty ( P trend <0.001). Patients with moderate and severe difficulty were at an increased risk for all-cause and noncardiovascular hospitalization. In a second assessment, 17.7% of survivors reported more difficulty with ADLs and patients with persistently severe or worsening difficulty were at an increased risk for death (hazard ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.71–2.58; P <0.001) and hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.31–1.74; P <0.001). Conclusions— Functional disability is common in patients with heart failure, can progress over time, and is associated with adverse prognosis.

Purpose To provide an overview of rehabilitation medicine– and physical modality–based approaches to cancer pain management, and to highlight the fact that these approaches are generally used in conjunction and that a majority are focused on minimizing pain during periods of mobility and the performance of activities of daily living. Methods We performed a nonsystematic literature review and provide a description of the current standard of care. Results Rehabilitative and physical modalities used to manage pain can be grouped into four categories: those that modulate nociception, stabilize or unload painful structures, influence physiological processes that indirectly influence nociception, or alleviate pain arising from the overloading of muscles and connective tissues that often occurs after surgery or with sarcopenia in late-stage cancer. Most modalities have been pragmatically refined over the years, and many have an evidence base, although few have been explicitly validated in the oncologic setting. With few exceptions, they are patient controlled and free of adverse effects. Conclusion Physical modalities and rehabilitation medicine offer a range of pain management approaches that may serve as beneficial adjuncts to the conventional systemic and interventional analgesic strategies used to control cancer-related pain. These approaches may be particularly beneficial to patients with movement-associated pain and those who are ambivalent regarding pharmacoanalgesia.

Cancer rehabilitation is a rapidly emerging and evolving medical field in both Europe and the United States, in large part because of increases in the number of cancer survivors. Although few argue with the need to restore function and quality of life to patients affected by cancer and its treatments, differences exist between European countries with regard to the funding, accessibility, and even the definition of cancer rehabilitation services. In the United States, there is tremendous variability in the provision of rehabilitation services resulting from a variety of factors, including a lack of highly trained cancer rehabilitation physicians and therapists as well as a lack of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation programs, even at the majority of top cancer centers. Although studies evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in the cancer setting, particularly exercise, have influenced clinical decision‐making in both Europe and the United States for some time, this emerging evidence base also is now starting to influence guideline and policy making. Coordinated research efforts are essential to establish a robust framework to support future investigation and establish shared initiatives. Determining the best way forward for cancer survivors will require investment in large‐scale prospective cohort studies that sufficiently describe their rehabilitation needs through the continuum of the survivorship experience. Cancer 2013;119(11 suppl):2170‐8. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Fatigue is the problematic symptom identified by patients with cancer. However, fatigue has not been widely examined in caregivers of patients with cancer. In this study, 131 caregivers of patients diagnosed with advanced stage cancer and actively receiving radiotherapy reported experiencing the most difficulties with fatigue (mean 46.9; on a 0-100 scale, with a 10-point difference having clinical meaning) at baseline and at a 6-month follow-up (mean 48.3). This is in sharp contrast to other domains of quality of life and functioning being rated in the 60s, 70s and 80s by the caregivers of patients with cancer. Given the level of fatigue reported by the caregivers of patients with cancer, if confirmed by other investigators in larger and more diverse samples, interventions targeting caregiver fatigue should be explored.

Objective: To review the benefits of adapting the complex techniques of formal lymphedema therapy to the more generalized forms of edema often seen in the chronic disease and palliative care settings. Data Sources: Peer-reviewed literature and clinical practice. Conclusion: Lymphedema treatment modalities have much to offer beyond their well-characterized benefit in classical lymphedema. In modified forms, they may improve and lessen the burden of refractory edema originating from a diverse range of causes. Thoughtful planning and practice, however, are essential as an inadequate adaptation may result in unnecessary effort, injury for the patient, or an unsatisfactory outcome.

Background Patient-reported signs and symptoms are often the first indication of clinically relevant lymphedema. Objective The purpose of this study was to develop and assess the diagnostic accuracy of a screening questionnaire to detect lower-extremity lymphedema (LEL) among normal-weight women and women with obesity. Design This was a cross-sectional survey study. Methods The authors reviewed existing questionnaires assessing upper-extremity lymphedema (UEL) for potential questions and worked with content experts to generate new items. A draft questionnaire with 59 items was reviewed by 5 physicians and 5 physical therapists who specialized in lymphedema management and 5 female patients with clinically confirmed secondary LEL. A revised questionnaire with 45 items was administered by mail to 186 women with clinically confirmed LEL (n=116) or UEL (n=70). A total of 99 women (53.2% of 186) completed the mailed survey, and 28 women with lymphedema who were recruited directly in a lymphedema clinic waiting area also completed the survey. A parsimonious subset of items that best discriminated patients with and without LEL was identified using chi-square tests and logistic regression. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting LEL and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR−) were estimated for the entire sample and for subsamples defined by obesity (body mass index ≥30 versus &lt;30 kg/m2), which may confound the accurate diagnosis of LEL. Results Questionnaires were completed by 127 women (LEL group, n=88; UEL group, n=39). A sum of 13 items (score range=0–52) was the most discriminating. Using a cutoff score of ≥5 points, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting LEL among all participants were 95.5% and 86.5%, respectively (LR+=7.1, LR−=0.05), and 94.8% and 76.5%, respectively (LR+=4.0, LR−=0.07), for participants who were obese. Limitations By enumerating a sample with a high prevalence of LEL, a spectrum bias may have been introduced, which may have affected the accuracy of the screening questionnaire. Conclusions The brief, 13-item self-report questionnaire is a sensitive and specific tool for detecting clinically relevant LEL among women, including those with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2.

Abstract Background: Clinical guidelines for breast cancer survivors with and at-risk for lymphedema have advised against upper body exercise, preventing them from obtaining established health benefits of weight-lifting. The primary hypotheses of the Physical Activity and Lymphedema Trial were that lymphedema onset and worsening would not differ after a one-year weightlifting intervention compared to no exercise among survivors at risk for and with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Methods: We performed a randomized controlled trial of a twice-weekly progressive weight-lifting intervention involving 141 breast cancer survivors with stable arm lymphedema at study entry and 154 survivors at-risk for lymphedema at study entry. Treatment group participants were provided a gym membership and 13 weeks of supervised instruction; the remaining nine months were unsupervised. Control group participants were provided the intervention after study completion. The primary outcome was the change in arm swelling at one year, as measured by water volumetry of the affected and unaffected arms. Secondary outcomes included the clinician defined incidence of onset and exacerbations of lymphedema, lymphedema symptoms, and muscle strength. Participants with lymphedema were required to wear a well-fitted compression garment while weight-lifting. Results: Among the women who entered the study with lymphedema, the proportion who experienced a 5% or greater increase in arm swelling (interlimb difference) was similar in the treatment and control groups (11% versus 12%; cumulative incidence ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.00 (0.88 to 1.13) As compared with the control group, the women in the intervention group with lymphedema had greater improvements in self-reported lymphedema symptom severity (p=0.03), and a lower incidence of lymphedema exacerbations as assessed by a certified lymphedema specialist (14% versus 29% in the control group, p= 0.04). Among the women who entered the study without lymphedema, more control than treatment group women experienced lymphedema onset defined by 5% increase in interlimb difference (17 versus 11%, p = 0.35). Among higher risk women (5+ lymph nodes removed), this comparison was statistically significant (22 versus 7%, p=0.04). Clinician-defined BCRL onset occurred in 1 treatment and 3 control group women (p=0.62). Conclusions: Slowly progressive weight-lifting had no significant impact on arm swelling among breast cancer survivors with lymphedema, and resulted in a reduced incidence of lymphedema flares and improvement in symptoms. In breast cancer survivors at risk for lymphedema, a program of slowly progressive weight-lifting, compared with no intervention, did not result in increased incidence of lymphedema. In secondary analyses, women with 5+ nodes removed who did weight-lifting were less likely to experience increases in arm swelling. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr ES9-3.

Patients with cancer often have complex needs that must be met within a short intervention window. The authors highlight opportunities for improved multidisciplinary care for patients with advanced cancer and their families.