Bone loss in the affected forearm in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a controlled study
We aimed to investigate the association between lymphedema and bone mass density (BMD) of affected and unaffected forearms in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). We also explored whether there was a relationship between any disability and BMD on the affected side.
We evaluated 111 patients (53.75 ± 9.07) with unilateral lymphedema (group 1) and 61 patients (50.90 ± 12.44) without lymphedema (group 2) after breast cancer surgery. BMD was performed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in lumbar spine, femoral neck, and distal forearm on both sides. Functional situation was assessed by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire.
The total Z score (p = 0.018), T score (p = 0.005), and BMD value (p = 0.014) were lower in the affected forearm than the unaffected forearm in group 1. There was no difference between the affected or unaffected sides in the total Z score (p = 0.394), T score (p = 0.518), and BMD value (p = 0.629) in group 2. The DXA measurements in terms of the total forearm Z, T scores, and BMD value on the affected side were statistically significantly different between the groups. There was no difference between groups in the femur neck and lumbar total Z and T scores. There was also a positive correlation between the QuickDASH scores and lymphedema stage (r = 0.469, p = 0.001) and the duration without treatment of lymphedema (r = 0.298, p = 0.02) in group 1.
We recommend early diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema for the protection of upper extremity disability and localized osteoporosis in patients with BCRL.
KeywordsLymphedema Osteoporosis Local bone loss QuickDASH Quality of life
Compliance with ethical standards
The corresponding author has full control of all primary data and agrees to allow the journal to review the data if requested.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.(2013) The diagnosis treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2016 Consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology 49:170–184Google Scholar
- 9.ISL (2009) I. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema 2009 Consensus Document of the International Society of Lymphology Lymphology 42 (2):51–60Google Scholar
- 13.Hill DA, Horick NK, Isaacs C, Domchek SM, Tomlinson GE, Lowery JT, Kinney AY, Berg JS, Edwards KL, Moorman PG, Plon SE, Strong LC, Ziogas A, Griffin CA, Kasten CH, Finkelstein DM (2014) Long-term risk of medical conditions associated with breast cancer treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 145(1):233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Elefteriou F, Karsenty G (2013) Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of bone metabolism. In: Clifford jR (ed) Neuronal regulation of bone remodeling, 8th edn. Wiley and son, Hoboken, pp 82–90Google Scholar
- 24.Ceceli E, Ayhan Ardıc F, Ergun S, Karaoglan B, Yorgancıoglu R (1998) Diagnosis and follow-up of reflex sympathetic dystropy syndrome by dual energy x-ray absorbtiometry. Phys Med 1:7–10Google Scholar
- 28.Deutsch M, Land S, Begovic M, Sharif S (2008) The incidence of arm edema in women with breast cancer randomized on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project study B-04 to radical mastectomy versus total mastectomy and radiotherapy versus total mastectomy alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70(4):1020–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar