Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A quantitative comparison of arm activity between survivors of breast cancer and healthy controls: use of accelerometry

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Survivors of breast cancer (BC) on the non-dominant side have more persistent deficits than those with cancer on the dominant limb. What is not known is whether those with BC use their involved upper limbs more, less, or at the same level as women without BC. Accelerometer use offers a quantifiable method to measure activity levels of upper limbs. The purpose of this study was to quantify the activity levels of the non-dominant involved limb among survivors of BC and compare these values to their dominant limb, as well as the non-dominant limb of a control group.

Methods

Participants (n = 30) were women with unilateral BC on the non-dominant limb, diagnosed between 6 and 24 months prior to data collection, and a matched healthy group of women as controls. Participants completed the following questionnaires: medical and demographics, Brief Fatigue Inventory, Brief Pain Inventory – Short form, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), and Beck Depression Index. Participants wore an accelerometer on each wrist during waking hours for 7 days. Arm activity was measured using vector magnitude activity counts extracted from the accelerometers.

Results

There were no significant differences in total vector magnitude activity counts between groups for either limb. Within group dominant to non-dominant comparison was significantly different (p ≤ 0.001). No significant difference in pain was present but significant differences for fatigue (p = 0.002), depression (p = 0.004), and DASH scores (p = 0.035) were present.

Conclusions

Women with non-dominant BC use their involved limb similar to healthy controls but less than their dominant limb.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al (eds) (2020) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2016, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2016/, based on November 2018 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2019. Accessed Oct 2019

  2. National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS) Our Mission. NCCS - National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. https://www.canceradvocacy.org/about-us/our-mission/. Accessed January 9, 2020

  3. Ganz PA (2011) The ‘three Ps’ of cancer survivorship care. BMC Med 9:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kootstra J, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM, Rietman H, de Vries J, Baas P, Geertzen JH, Hoekstra HJ (2008) Quality of life after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection in stage I/II breast cancer patients: a prospective longitudinal study. Ann Surg Oncol 15(9):2533–2541

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mutrie N, Campbell AM, Whyte F, McConnachie A, Emslie C, Lee L, Kearney N, Walker A, Ritchie D (2007) Benefits of supervised group exercise programme for women being treated for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 334(7592):517–517

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Blomqvist L, Stark B, Engler N, Malm M (2004) Evaluation of arm and shoulder mobility and strength after modified radical mastectomy and radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 43(3):280–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rietman JS, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB, Baas P, de Vries J, Dolsma W, Groothoff JW, Eisma WH, Hoekstra HJ (2003) Short-term morbidity of the upper limb after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection for stage I or II breast carcinoma. Cancer. 98(4):690–696

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hayes S, Battistutta D, Newman B (2005) Objective and subjective upper body function six months following diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94(1):1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tengrup I, Tennvall-Nittby L, Christiansson I, Laurin M (2000) Arm morbidity after breast-conserving therapy for breast cancer. Acta Oncol 39(3):393–397

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Merchant CR, Chapman T, Kilbreath SL, Refshauge KM, Krupa K (2008) Decreased muscle strength following management of breast cancer. Disabil Rehabil 30(15):1098–1105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmitz KH, Speck RM, Rye SA, DiSipio T, Hayes SC (2012) Prevalence of breast cancer treatment sequelae over 6 years of follow-up: the Pulling Through Study. Cancer. 118(8 Suppl):2217–2225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hayes SC, Johansson K, Stout NL, Prosnitz R, Armer JM, Gabram S, Schmitz KH (2012) Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care. Cancer. 118(8 Suppl):2237–2249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peintinger F, Reitsamer R, Stranzl H, Ralph G (2003) Comparison of quality of life and arm complaints after axillary lymph node dissection vs sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 89(4):648–652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nesvold I, Dahl AA, Lokkevik E, Mengshoel AM, Fossa SD (2008) Arm and shoulder morbidity in breast cancer patients after breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy. Acta Oncol 47(5):835–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rietman JS, Geertzen JH, Hoekstra HJ et al (2006) Long term treatment related upper limb morbidity and quality of life after sentinel lymph node biopsy for stage I or II breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 32(2):148–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nesvold I, Foss SD, Holm I, Naume B, Dahl AA (2010) Arm/shoulder problems in breast cancer survivors are associated with reduced health and poorer physical quality of life. Acta Oncol 49(3):347–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rietman JS, Dijkstra PU, Debreczeni R, Geertzen JH, Robinson DP, De Vries J (2004) Impairments, disabilities and health related quality of life after treatment for breast cancer: a follow-up study 2.7 years after surgery. Disabil Rehabil 26(2):78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shamley D, Srinaganathan R, Oskrochi R, Lascurain-Aguirrebeña I, Sugden E (2009) Three-dimensional scapulothoracic motion following treatment for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118:315–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0240-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shamley D, Lascurain-Aguirrebena I, Oskrochi R, Srinaganathan R (2012) Shoulder morbidity after treatment for breast cancer is bilateral and greater after mastectomy. Acta Oncol 51(8):1045–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher MI, Capilouto G, Malone T, Bush H, Uhl TL (2019) An observational study comparing upper extremity function in women with and without a history of breast cancer. Phys Ther. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa015

  21. Acuna M, Karduna AR (2012) Wrist activity monitor counts are correlated with dynamic but not static assessments of arm elevation exposure made with a triaxial accelerometer. Ergonomics. 55(8):963–970

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawinger E, Uhl TL, Abel M, Kamineni S (2015) Assessment of accelerometers for measuring upper-extremity physical activity. J Sport Rehabil 24(3):236–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hurd WJ, Morrow MM, Kaufman KR (2013) Tri-axial accelerometer analysis techniques for evaluating functional use of the extremities. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23(4):924–929

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tokuda K, Lee B, Kurihara J et al (2013) Analysis of laterality in upper limb function during simulated range of motion limitation using long-term portable accelerometer recordings. Rigakuryoho Kagaku 28(1):15–20

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stout NL, Pfalzer LA, Springer B, Levy E, McGarvey C, Danoff JV, Gerber LH, Soballe PW (2012) Breast cancer-related lymphedema: comparing direct costs of a prospective surveillance model and a traditional model of care. Phys Ther 92(1):152–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. United States Department of Labor. United States Employment Service, and the North Carolina Occupational Analysis Field Center. Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT): Revised Fourth Edition, 1991. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-01-12. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06100.v1

  27. Cella D, Viswanathan HN, Hays RD, Mendoza TR, Stein KD, Pasta DJ, Foreman AJ, Vadhan-Raj S, Kallich JD (2008) Development of a fatigue and functional impact scale in anemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Cancer. 113(6):1480–1488

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Farnen Price W, Doherty D, Adams A, Bohde E (2014) Breast Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcomes: evidence-based cancer-related fatigue measurement tools. Rehabil Oncol 32(3):32–39 38p

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM (1994) Pain assessment: global use of the brief pain inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap 23(2):129–138

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Harrington S, Gilchrist L, Sander A (2014) Breast Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcomes: clinical measures of pain. Rehabil Oncol. 32(1):13–21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Beck AT, Steer RA, Carbin MG (1988) Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev 8(1):77–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Solway S, Beaton D, McConnell S, Bombardier C (2002) The DASH outcome user’s manual, 2nd edn. Toronto, Institute for Work and Health

    Google Scholar 

  33. Miale S, Harrington S, Kendig T (2013) Oncology section task force on breast cancer outcomes: clinical measures of upper extremity function. Rehabil Oncol 31(1):27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. de Jong N, Candel MJ, Schouten HC, Abu-Saad HH, Courtens AM (2004) Prevalence and course of fatigue in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 15(6):896–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lis CG, Gupta D, Grutsch JF (2008) The relationship between insomnia and patient satisfaction with quality of life in cancer. Support Care Cancer 16(3):261–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schultz SL, Dalton SO, Christensen J, Carlsen K, Ross L, Johansen C (2011) Factors correlated with fatigue in breast cancer survivors undergoing a rehabilitation course, Denmark, 2002-2005. Psychooncology. 20(4):352–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gerber LH, Stout N, McGarvey C, Soballe P, Shieh CY, Diao G, Springer BA, Pfalzer LA (2011) Factors predicting clinically significant fatigue in women following treatment for primary breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 19(10):1581–1591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded in part by a grant from the Academy of Oncologic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association.

Funding

This study was funded by grant from the Academy of Oncologic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association for the purchase of the equipment used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

    Mary Insana Fisher

  2. Nursing and Allied Health Research Office, Baptist Health Lexington, Lexington, KY, USA

    Claire C. Davies

  3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Timothy L. Uhl

Authors
  1. Mary Insana Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire C. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy L. Uhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Mary Insana Fisher, Claire C Davies, and Timothy L Uhl. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Mary Insana Fisher, Claire C Davies, and Timothy L Uhl, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Insana Fisher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Mary I Fisher, PT, PhD received a research grant for equipment from the Academy of Oncologic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association. Claire Davies, PT, PhD, and Timothy Uhl, PhD, ATC, PT, declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisher, M.I., Davies, C.C. & Uhl, T.L. A quantitative comparison of arm activity between survivors of breast cancer and healthy controls: use of accelerometry. Support Care Cancer 28, 5307–5313 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05365-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05365-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation