Abstract
Purpose
Early treatment is advised for breast cancer–related arm lymphoedema (BCRL), a common sequelae of breast cancer treatment. Expert guidance recommends two-phase decongestive lymphoedema treatment (DLT), although evidence is lacking for current treatment protocols and UK women are routinely offered self-treatment with hosiery.
This systematic review considered evidence regarding treatment of early BCRL, that is, within 12 months of developing BCRL.
Methods
A systematic review of evidence for clinical effectiveness of DLT for women with less than 12-month BCRL duration (early BCRL) was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method. Studies included women with < 12-month or mean < 9-month BCRL duration; some studies reported only one eligible group. The original search was conducted in 2016 and updated in 2018 and 2022. Methodological quality of identified studies was assessed using JBI critical appraisal instruments. Outcomes of interest were extracted with eligible results displayed in narrative and tabular format. Strength of evidence was rated using the GRADE system.
Results
Seven trials and three descriptive studies provided weak evidence (grade B) for effectiveness of DLT for early BCRL. Heterogeneous protocols limited comparison of findings. There was no evidence for the most effective treatment or treatment combination or optimal frequency or duration of treatment.
Conclusion
There is no evidence to justify change in current lymphoedema treatment, whether self-treatment with hosiery (UK) or two-phase DLT (other countries). Further research for the early BCRL population is required.
Implications for cancer survivors
Women with early BCRL require early and effective treatment although this updated review shows there is still no evidence for what that treatment should be.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Breast cancer–related arm lymphoedema (BCRL) is a common sequelae of breast cancer treatment with a significant physical and psychosocial impact on women and their families [1, 2]. BCRL typically presents as arm swelling, whole or part, often extending into hand and fingers and sometimes the adjacent trunk quadrant, including breast lymphoedema. Symptoms may include heaviness, with reduced manual dexterity affecting activities of daily living sometime require work environment modifications or change of employment [3,4,5]. Women with BCRL typically experience greater psychological morbidity and psychosocial impact than those with breast cancer alone [2, 6]. For many women, swelling may initially subside with rest and elevation. For others, symptoms become more severe and increasingly difficult to treat, with firmer and fibrosed subcutaneous tissues and increased risk of infection due to reduced lymphatic drainage [7,8,9,10].
In recent years, prophylactic lympho-vascular anastomotic surgery and less aggressive axillary surgery (sentinel lymph node biopsy) and radiotherapy protocols have minimised axillary treatment and reduced the incidence and presenting severity of BCRL [11]. However, a pooled BCRL incidence of 14.29% (95%CI 13.79–14.79) suggests that of the 55,000 new cases of invasive cancer diagnosed each year in the UK at least 7000 will develop BCRL within 2 years following cancer treatment, with others developing BCRL many years later [12,13,14].
Lymphoedema remains a physical and psychosocial problem regardless of the amount of visible swelling or whether symptoms are mild, moderate or severe [15]. Although women are routinely advised to access early treatment should swelling occur, evidence for effectiveness of initial BCRL treatment is lacking. International consensus has for the past 30 years recommended two-phase decongestive lymphoedema treatment (DLT), a combination of conservative treatments also known as complex decongestive treatment (CDT), to reduce and control lymphoedema and avoid the complication of cellulitis [16,17,18]. While several studies have shown that women who receive initial intensive-DLT followed by maintenance self-treatment with hosiery will achieve better outcomes than those self-treating with hosiery alone, particularly for those with mild and recent BCRL onset [19,20,21,22], Dayes et al. [23] found no significant difference in outcomes (n = 105). Systematic reviews have concluded there is weak evidence for the effectiveness of DLT although insufficient to inform an optimal DLT package due to the wide range of treatment protocols, programme duration and variation in study population severity [24, 25]. Most reviews noted a predominance of underpowered studies, heterogeneity of treatment protocols and measured outcomes and lack of follow-up monitoring long-term effects [24,25,26].
International awareness of BCRL has greatly improved since an early systematic review concluded the major limiting factors for BCRL treatment were lack of awareness of the problem and insufficient resource to manage it [27]. BCRL is no longer seen as a neglected or rare condition, with women now routinely informed about self-management strategies to minimise the risk of BCRL and signposting to ensure they no longer wait months or years to access treatment [28]. However, despite the existence of many UK lymphoedema services, lymphoedema treatment capacity remains a problem, and women are routinely offered self-treatment with hosiery although the impact of this approach on treatment outcomes has not been addressed [16, 18, 29]; UK practitioners struggle to provide appropriate care to increasing caseloads of individuals with all types of lymphoedema and complex comorbidities [30, 31]. In contrast, other countries consider two-phase DLT with initial intensive-DLT to be standard care despite reporting limited service capacity for providing intensive-DLT [32] or MLD [33].
Research into BCRL management has for many years focused on surveillance and testing whether prophylactic interventions for subclinical oedema will reduce the incidence of BCRL [34]. A previous review found that evidence for the effectiveness of initial treatment for women with early established BCRL, that is, less than 12-month duration, hereafter referred to as ‘early BCRL’, is lacking [35] yet this is not considered a research priority.
The objective of this updated systematic review was to (1) identify the effect of DLT on excess arm volume (EAV) and patient-reported outcomes for women with early BCRL and (2) determine whether four years after the original review [35], there was still the need for a definitive trial; it is good practice to periodically update systematic reviews and report changes to findings [36]. The definition of early BCRL as < 12-month duration was chosen to exclude women with chronic changes to their affected arm, such as fibrosis and thickening, which would be more difficult to treat.
Method
Literature searches and inclusion criteria
Figure 1 shows the review process which was conducted according to the published protocol [37, 38], PROSPERO (CRD42015015843), as reported in the PRISMA checklist (Online Resource 1). The JBI review method was chosen because it allowed inclusion of uncontrolled quantitative studies and it was expected that relevant lymphoedema research studies could be of non-experimental design [39–41].
Eligibility criteria and keywords (Table 1) were developed using the PICO framework and JBI terminology (type of Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study) [40, 41]. The final search strategy combined variant terms for ‘lymphoedema’ and ‘breast cancer’ in title, abstract, subject heading and keyword (Online Resource 2). The strategy was deliberately broad as attempts to refine searches omitted potentially relevant papers. The list of included databases (see Online Resources 2 and 3) was also broad, including a wide range of medical and nursing databases, to identify relevant black and grey literature and non-English language publications with an English language abstract, with no date limits applied; early lymphoedema papers were published in journals which were not index linked.
The original searches in July 2016 [35] were updated on 6 July 2018 following the original protocol although without searching grey literature [37, 38]. The most recent search, on 8 September 2022, was limited to PubMed, CINAHL and AMED databases which was a pragmatic decision to manage the time-consuming process of updating the review by searching those databases considered most likely to capture all relevant literature from journals addressing medicine, nursing and professions allied to medicine; the review protocol was otherwise unchanged (Online Resource 3). Four lymphoedema journals (EJLRP, J.Phlebo.Lymphol, Lymphology, J Lymphoedema) were hand-searched on each occasion (Online Resource 4), and reference lists from contemporary systematic reviews of BCRL treatment were checked for additional references, including Lasinski et al. [42] in 2016 and Davies et al. [43] and Marchica et al. [44] in 2022. All search results were electronically imported into EndNote with duplicate references removed using the automated duplicates finder and by manual sorting. The remaining records were combined into a single EndNote reference library (version X9).
One reviewer (EJ), an expert lymphoedema practitioner and researcher, screened records against the review eligibility criteria (Fig. 1): firstly, to remove titles describing other populations and interventions not of interest; secondly, to remove papers without an abstract and abstracts which did not include the population, interventions and outcomes of interest; finally, to remove full papers not fulfilling the eligibility criteria (Table 1), and examining at this stage those papers with abstracts lacking sufficient detail for exclusion. Eligibility of non-English papers was confirmed using online translation tools and bilingual colleagues; no formal translation was required. Due to a lack of studies with the population of interest, studies were included which separately reported a subgroup of the whole population or one study group with < 12-month or mean < 9-month BCRL duration which would keep to a minimum the inclusion of women with duration ≥ 12-month (chronic BCRL). The number of references excluded at each stage was recorded with reasons documented only for those excluded at full paper screening. Corresponding authors were contacted where full papers contained insufficient detail to determine eligibility; papers were excluded if contact details were missing or corresponding authors did not respond.
Methodological assessment and data extraction
Two reviewers (EJ, DB) independently assessed included papers using standardised JBI critical appraisal tools to determine how each study addressed the possibility of bias in its design, conduct and analysis [35, 41]. A lymphoedema definitions list (Online Resource 5) was developed (EJ) to guide assessment by the secondary reviewer (DB). Differences of opinion were resolved through discussion, with no input required from a third independent reviewer (ER). Methodological limitations were reported rather than excluding poor quality papers.
Relevant outcomes were extracted (EJ) using the JBI standardised data extraction tool (Online Resource 6) adapted (EJ) to capture sufficient data to describe lymphoedema setting, population, interventions and outcomes of interest [41]. Corresponding authors were contacted where data were missing or unclear. Due to wide heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes of interest, findings could not be synthesised but are instead displayed in narrative and tabular format according to reported study intervention with summary statistics; relevant missing data are reported. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE system with a strong recommendation (grade A) for health benefits indicating robust evidence of good quality and a weak recommendation (grade B) indicating some benefit with poor quality evidence [45]. There were insufficient data to perform two planned subgroup analyses: (1) previous lymphoedema treatment and (2) severity of swelling at baseline.
Results
Study selection
A total of 23,348 references were identified from three searches (Fig. 2), with most excluded as duplicates (n = 13,937, 60%) and by screening titles (n = 8829, 38%). Excluded abstracts (n = 329) included conference abstracts (n = 33) without a full publication. Excluded full papers (n = 243) are reported with reasons in Jeffs et al. [35] for the original search (n = 160) and in Online Resource 7 for updated searches (n = 83). Many studies did not report BCRL duration.
Only 10 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, six from the original search, one from 2018 and three from 2022. Another paper included in the original review [35] was excluded here because their findings were presented as figures and, due to lack of clear labelling, could not be compared with other studies [46]. The included studies were six RCT [21, 23, 47,48,49,50], one quasi-controlled study [51], one prospective uncontrolled study [52] and two retrospective case review studies [53, 54].
Methodological assessment
All studies had significant areas of bias, with controlled studies scoring 6–10 out of 13 items (Table 2) and uncontrolled studies 3–7 out of nine items (Table 3). Only two trials described both randomisation method and allocation concealment [21, 23]. Although five trials blinded their assessors [21, 47,48,49], participant and therapist were not blinded to allocation despite three trials testing interventions with potential for blinding participants: bandage method, exercise programme [49,50,51]; there is no sham version of manual lymph drainage (MLD), self-lymphatic drainage (SLD) or two-phase DLT [21, 23, 47, 48]. Sample sizes for this review were small (n = 24–57), affecting precision of estimates and increasing the possibility of a type II error. Six trials reported attrition (5–40%), for mostly study-related reasons [21, 23, 48, 50, 51], although only one trial conducted sensitivity analyses [23].
All trials reported comparable study groups at enrolment and, except for their intervention of interest, treated women identically and according to their study allocation. Outcomes included in this review were measured using reliable methods, although findings were excluded for two studies which reported absolute volume [50] or only the affected arm [49]. Only one study [21] reported training assessors which would reduce measurement bias although two studies used experienced lymphoedema practitioners [48, 50]. However, heterogeneity of outcomes and measurement methods made comparisons difficult, and studies excluded from their analysis those women who did not complete allocated treatment or subsequent study follow-up.
The two retrospective case review studies had low risk of bias [53, 54]. The prospective uncontrolled study [52] lacked sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility of reported outcome measurements, used a non-validated tool to measure self-reported symptoms and did not follow study outcomes beyond the immediate post-intervention period.
Characteristics of included studies
Table 4 shows an overview of key characteristics for each study with findings reported for only the eligible group, excluding findings for intervention and comparator groups with > 12-month or mean > 9-month BCRL duration.
Participants
Results were available for 327 women with mean/median age from 47.5 to 61.6 years, although no study specifically addressed the population of interest. Four studies (n = 148) reported a subgroup with BCRL duration ≤ 12 months [21, 23, 52, 53], four studies (n = 138) had mean ≤ 9-month duration [47, 49, 50, 54] and two trials (n = 41) reported only one study group with mean ≤ 9-month BCRL duration [48, 50]. The number of women with prior treatment experience could not be determined as only four studies explicitly excluded women due to prior BCRL treatment [48, 51, 52]. Three studies did not address prior BCRL treatment and three excluded an unknown number of women who had received treatment within the previous 1–6 months [21, 23, 50].
The controlled studies defined BCRL by arm size difference using varying criteria, with four studies contributing a pooled mean baseline of 21%EAV [23, 48, 53, 54]. No descriptive study provided a BCRL definition. Three populations reported moderate BCRL, ≥ 20%EAV [23, 47, 53], and one reported mild BCRL, < 20%EAV [52]. Only two studies reported ISL lymphoedema severity stage [47, 53].
Study setting
Studies were conducted between 2000 and 2019 in countries with well-developed health care systems, mostly in Lymphoedema Units or Rehabilitation Departments associated with cancer services, with time periods varying from 8 months to 11 years. Studies were conducted in: Canada [21, 23], Iran [51, 52], South Korea [49, 50, 54], Turkey [47], Greece [53], Poland [48].
Interventions and comparators
The studies reported heterogeneous treatment protocols, intervention duration and components (Tables 4 and 5). Only two studies provided sufficient detail to replicate key components of both intervention and comparator groups [21, 48]. One trial [23] and three descriptive studies [52,53,54] provided intensive-DLT as the intervention, including compression bandaging (CB), MLD, exercise and skin care. A further four trials provided intensive-DLT to intervention and/or comparator group [21, 48, 49, 51]. There was heterogeneity of CB materials, application method, treatment duration (2–4 weeks) and post-intervention follow-up (0–104 weeks). Only two trials provided sufficient detail to replicate intervention and comparator [21, 48]. Detailed information regarding exercise and skin care was lacking from most studies.
All 10 studies provided CB, for 2–5 weeks, although only one trial [50] specifically addressed the use of CB without reporting sufficient detail regarding materials and other treatment components to replicate the intervention. Only two trials described the process sufficiently to replicate CB [21, 48]. Otherwise, CB was typically described as short-stretch without indicating the number or type of bandage and sub-bandage layers.
Two trials tested the use of MLD to determine whether treatment outcomes improved with intensive-DLT compared with CB alone [21, 48]. Protocols differed in number of sessions (10 and 20) and duration (30 and 45 min). Another six studies provided MLD within their treatment protocol [23, 49, 51,52,53,54], reporting only the session duration and treatment method, whether Vodder or Foldi, which should be sufficient for trained MLD practitioners to replicate the intervention.
One study tested whether SLD enhanced CB outcomes, providing 10–15 min SLD prior to bandaging, with SLD discontinued during the median 6-week post-intervention self-treatment period [47]. Two other studies included SLD only during the post-intervention self-treatment phase so were excluded from this analysis [51, 54].
One trial tested the benefit of adding 15-min active resistance exercise (ARE) to intensive-DLT compared with intensive-DLT alone, with ARE continued throughout the 6-week self-treatment phase [49]. Six other studies reported exercise done by both study groups [23, 47, 48, 52,53,54] although only one provided sufficient detail to replicate the exercises [48]. Another trial reported relaxation exercise as the intervention with findings excluded as the intervention group was not the population of interest [51].
Outcomes
Outcomes of interest to this review included arm size, reported as relative change in EAV (Table 6) or pre- and post-intervention %EAV (Table 7); health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; RAND, USA) (Table 7); function using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and QuickDASH (Table 7); arm heaviness and patient-perceived benefit. Wide heterogeneity in study populations, interventions and measurement outcomes made meaningful comparison of data difficult and meta-analyses could not be performed.
Length of follow-up
Duration of follow-up ranged from 0 to 24 months (Table 5). The longest follow-up for a prospective trial was one year [23] and two years for a retrospective study [54]. Two trials completed follow-up at 6 weeks [49, 51] which is insufficient to determine the long-term benefit or retention of treatment effect. Four studies did not follow participants beyond completion of the study intervention period [21, 50, 52, 53].
Findings
Tables 6 and 7 show findings, from the 10 studies according to intervention of interest and as published, including available p values, with additional findings for a subgroup of the study population provided by corresponding authors.
Intensive-DLT/CDT
Two trials reported eligible data for both intervention and comparator groups. Dayes [23] reported no significant difference in between-group outcomes although 25% of those receiving intensive-DLT achieved ≥ 50%EAV reduction compared with 15% of those self-treating with hosiery. McNeely [21] reported greater reduction for those receiving CB + MLD (intensive-DLT) compared with CB alone, although they did not report the statistical significance and the study sample was smaller.
Dayes [23] and Michopoulos [53] reported pre- and post-intervention %EAV, categorised as pre-intervention moderate swelling (≥ 20% < 40%EAV) respectively reducing to mild (≥ 10% < 20%EAV) and minimal (< 10%EAV) post-intervention swelling. The reason for substantially greater 81% improvement (Table 6) reported by Michopoulos [53] is unknown as their baseline 29%EAV is similar to other studies. Only Hwang [54] reported no post-intervention reduction, although they considered lack of progression over the 2-year study period a positive outcome.
There were varied outcomes for HRQOL and function (Table 7). Kim [49] reported significant post-intervention HRQOL improvement for both groups (p < 0.05) with, of note, substantially higher pre-intervention SF-36 scores for both groups than Dayes [23] who reported no significant change for both groups. Gradalski [48] reported high satisfaction with treatment outcomes, self-rating 9.4/10, although it is unclear whether women rated satisfaction with the treatment experience or outcomes.
These limited findings suggest intensive-DLT can improve BCRL symptoms although, due to conflicted findings, evidence is insufficient to report benefit.
Compression bandaging
Three studies reported demonstrated improvement with CB (Tables 6 and 7) although without shared or comparable outcomes or reporting methods [21, 47, 50]. These limited findings suggest CB can improve BCRL symptoms although, as the amount of improvement is unclear and no study compared CB with another intervention, evidence is insufficient to report benefit.
Manual lymph drainage
One trial [21] tested the effect of MLD within the intensive-DLT package although statistical difference was not reported for the eligible subgroup of the population, so it is unclear whether these findings favour inclusion of MLD (Table 7). Although Gradalski [48] conducted a similar trial, the findings cannot be reported as the intervention group was ineligible for this review. One study addressed SLD [47] with improvements to volume, HRQOL and arm function found in both groups, but they concluded SLD added no benefit to CB (Table 7).
Therefore, evidence is insufficient to report benefit of MLD or SLD within the intensive-DLT package.
Exercise
Kim [49] reported statistically significant improvement in post-intervention HRQOL for both groups receiving intensive-DLT (p < 0.05) although intergroup difference favoured the ARE intervention (p < 0.05) (Table 7). However, findings for reduction in arm size were excluded as reported using an ineligible method. There is insufficient evidence for the use of exercise to treat women with early BCRL.
Summary of findings
Few comparisons could be made between studies reporting the same intervention or comparator due to inconsistencies and imprecision of results, small samples and lack of directly comparing treatments. There were serious limitations affecting some studies more than others, including lack of allocation concealment and analysis of completed assessments rather than by intention to treat per-protocol.
Evidence was lacking for long-term benefit of intensive-DLT for this population although there is weak evidence (grade B) that decongestive treatments, whether provided in the form of CDT or CB, with or without MLD, effectively reduces lymphedema in women with early BCRL (Table 8). This review could not determine the most effective combination of treatment elements to reduce EAV or improve patient-centred outcomes, or the optimum treatment duration for women with early BCRL.
Discussion
This review provides the only systematic examination of evidence for treatment of women with < 12-month BCRL duration, with no relevant studies published since review searches were updated in September 2022. Therefore, there is no evidence to support change in clinical practice by UK practitioners who routinely offer women self-treatment with hosiery or by practitioners in other countries offering initial intensive-DLT as standard care. The paucity of eligible papers and lack of trials recruiting only women with early BCRL highlight a big gap in research addressing management of early BCRL.
Lack of evidence for superiority of any treatment for women with BCRL has been previously reported [24,25,26, 44]. While Rangon et al. [25] suggested their review findings favoured intensive-DLT over other multimodal therapies, they included a smaller selection of trials which mostly compared variations of intensive-DLT, adding, removing or replacing DLT components. Dayes et al. [23] reported an unexpected finding of no significant difference in outcomes for women randomised to two-phase DLT or self-treatment with hosiery which was contrary to findings of an earlier trial by Badger et al. [19] which favoured CB over self-treatment using hosiery. The reason for these different findings is unknown although participants in the earlier trial [19] had no previous treatment experience, whereas an unknown number of women in Dayes trial [23] had previously received two-phase DLT or worn hosiery.
Although Hwang et al. [54] were the only study not to report improvement with intensive-DLT, they considered it meaningful that BCRL severity had not progressed over the 24-month follow-up period. Several studies highlight the importance of applying effective treatment at an early stage and monitoring symptom severity [56,57,58,59]. Two prospective surveillance studies reported progression of BCRL symptoms for 16% of women despite using hosiery for self-treatment [56, 57], although Blom et al. [56] reported worsened swelling for 57% of those not wearing compression garments. Bar Ad et al. [9] reported increased number of women progressing from mild to more severe BCRL over a 5-year review period. However, prospective surveillance studies do not address the treatment of established BCRL, including early BCRL, and no study addressed whether intensive-DLT can more effectively prevent or limit progression of BCRL symptoms. Further, the consequences of not appropriately treating established BCRL at an early stage are not considered.
This review also highlighted the paucity of research monitoring outcomes of importance to women. Few studies reported outcomes other than arm volume, although available evidence highlights the importance of monitoring symptom severity, such as arm heaviness, tightness and shoulder range of movement, and not just size [60, 61]. Women’s views of the value of treatment benefit and satisfaction with treatment were considered by only one study in this review [48], although the importance or meaningfulness for women and practitioners of the statistically significant findings reported by some studies in this review is unknown. Variation in measurement and reporting methods contributed to the paucity of outcome data, with minimal clinically important change for objective and self-report measures yet to be agreed, including arm volume, symptoms and HRQOL [10, 24, 26].
A strength of this review is the inclusion of literature from many databases with no date or language restriction. However, although recent expansion of bibliographic databases has index-linked many journals publishing lymphoedema papers, some relevant literature may have been missed by not searching all databases in 2022. In future updates, further consideration should be given to including other databases which could source additional eligible papers, for example, Embase may provide access to European studies that are not index-linked by Medline/PubMed. The impact of using single screening is unknown although we minimised the risk of missing studies at screening of title and abstract through careful use of EndNote, rechecking categories (EJ) and supervision by a senior experienced reviewer (DB). Heterogeneity of interventions and assessment methods, and variations in quality of study design and reporting, limited comparison of results and determination of the most effective treatment elements and optimal duration of treatment. Further, study samples were small, and few studies had sufficient post-intervention follow-up to address the chronicity of BCRL and potential for post-intervention treatment failure; these factors have been reported by multiple reviews of evidence for treatment of women with any BCRL duration [24, 62, 63]. Other limitations of this review highlight the paucity of research for this group, such as exclusion of findings reporting non-standard measurement methods and inclusion of one study group with mean ≤ 9-month BCRL duration while excluding the other with > 12-month duration. The lack of consensus regarding a standardised format for reporting and to inform comparisons between different protocols has been reported elsewhere [26, 64].
Conclusion
The updated searches added four studies but highlight there is still no evidence to justify change to current practice for treatment of early BCRL, whether self-treatment with hosiery in the UK or two-phase DLT typically provided by other countries. As with the findings of the original report published in 2018 [35], there was weak evidence (grade B) [65] for the impact of DLT for women with early BCRL regardless of the combination of treatment components, and the heterogeneous treatment protocols did not permit conclusions to be drawn about optimal treatment components for initial BCRL treatment or the required duration to reduce EAV and improve patient-centred outcomes.
The findings of this review confirm that, four years after the original review [35], there is still a need for a definitive trial of treatment effectiveness for women with early BCRL. Researchers with an interest in this area need to design adequately powered studies which recruit only women with < 12-month BCRL duration and monitor treatment outcomes for at least one year and preferably five years or more. Collaborations should be encouraged between groups of lymphoedema researchers to create comparable treatment protocols, outcome measures and reporting methods. Further research is also required to determine measurement methods which are meaningful to women, including minimal clinically important changes for outcomes; the inclusion of women with BCRL in designing studies could help to identify priority outcomes and select appropriate patient reported outcome measures. The impact of intensive practitioner-delivered intensive-DLT and self-treatment with hosiery on progression of BCRL severity should also be addressed as prevention of symptom progression may be as important as improving symptoms.
Data availability
All data generated and/or analysed during this review are included in the published article and its supplementary files or in Jeffs et al. [35].
References
Burkhardt M, Belzner M, Berg A, Fleischer S (2014) Living with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a synthesis of qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 41(4):E220-237. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.E220-E237
Eaton LH, Narkthong N, Hulett JM (2020) Psychosocial issues associated with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a literature review. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 12(4):216–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-020-00376-x
Gursen C, Dylke ES, Moloney N, Meeus M, De Vrieze T, Devoogdt N, De Groef A (2021) Self-reported signs and symptoms of secondary upper limb lymphoedema related to breast cancer treatment: systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care (English Language Edition) 30(5):22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13440
Pain SJ, Vowler SL, Purushotham AD (2003) Is physical function a more appropriate measure than volume excess in the assessment of breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL)? Eur J Cancer Care 39(15):2168–2172. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00770-0
Zomkowski K, Cruz de Souza B, Pinheiro da Silva F, Moreira GM, de Souza Cunha N, Sperandio FF (2018) Physical symptoms and working performance in female breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 40(13):1485–1493. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1300950
Tobin MB, Lacey HJ, Meyer L, Mortimer PS (1993) The psychological morbidity of breast cancer-related arm swelling. Psychological morbidity of lymphoedema. Cancer 72(11):3248–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19931201)72:11%3c3248::AID-CNCR2820721119%3e3.0.CO;2-Z
Al-Niaimi F, Cox N (2009) Cellulitis and lymphoedema: a vicious cycle. J Lymphoedema 4(2):38–42
Asdourian MS, Skolny MN, Brunelle C, Seward CE, Salama L, Taghian AG (2016) Precautions for breast cancer-related lymphoedema: risk from air travel, ipsilateral arm blood pressure measurements, skin puncture, extreme temperatures, and cellulitis. Lancet Oncol 17(9):e392-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30204-2
Bar Ad V, Dutta PR, Solin LJ, Hwang WT, Tan KS, Both S, Cheville A, Harris EE (2012) Time-course of arm lymphedema and potential risk factors for progression of lymphedema after breast conservation treatment for early stage breast cancer. Breast J 18(3):219–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2012.01229.x
Smile TD, Tendulkar R, Schwarz G, Arthur D, Grobmyer S, Valente S, Vicini F, Shah C (2018) A review of treatment for breast cancer-related lymphedema: paradigms for clinical practice. Am J Clin Oncol 41(2):178–190. https://doi.org/10.1097/coc.0000000000000355
Ciudad P, Escandón JM, Bustos VP, Manrique OJ, Kaciulyte J (2022) Primary prevention of cancer-related lymphedema using preventive lymphatic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Plast Surg 55(1):18–25. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1740085
Cancer UK (2022) Breast cancer statistics. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer#heading-ThreeAccessed. Accessed 20 Nov 2022
Lin Y, Yang Y, Zhang X, Li W, Li H, Mu D (2022) Manual lymphatic drainage for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Breast Cancer 22(5):e664–e673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2022.01.013
Rockson SG, Keeley V, Kilbreath S, Szuba A, Towers A (2019) Cancer-associated secondary lymphoedema. Nat Rev Dis Primers 5(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0072-5
De Groef A, Devoogdt N, Gursen C, Moloney N, Warpy V, Daelemans J, Dams L, Haenen V, Van der Gucht E, Heroes AK, De Vrieze T, Dylke E (2022) Sensory signs and symptoms in women with self-reported breast cancer-related lymphedema: a case-control study close up. J Cancer Surviv 16(5):1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-021-01100-z
Armer JM, Ostby PL, Ginex PK, Beck M, Jie D, Fu MR, Lasinski BB, Lockwood S, Poage E, White J, Maloney C, Moriarty KA, Vrabel M, Morgan RL (2020) ONS guidelines for cancer treatment-related lymphedema. Oncol Nurs Forum 47(5):518–538. https://doi.org/10.1188/20.ONF.518-538
International Society of Lymphology (1995) The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema. Consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology Executive Committee. Lymphology 28(3):113–117
International Society of Lymphology (2020) The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 Consensus Document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology 53(1):3–19
Badger CMA, Peacock JL, Mortimer PS (2000) A randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial comparing multilayer bandaging followed by hosiery versus hosiery alone in the treatment of patients with lymphedema of the limb. Cancer 88(12):2832–2837. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20000615)88:12%3c2832::AID-CNCR24%3e3.0.CO;2-U
Liao SF, Li SH, Huang HY, Chen ST, Kuo SJ, Chen DR, Wei TS (2013) The efficacy of complex decongestive physiotherapy (CDP) and predictive factors of lymphedema severity and response to CDP in breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Breast 22(5):703–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.12.018
McNeely ML, Magee DJ, Lees AW, Bagnall KM, Haykowsky M, Hanson J (2004) The addition of manual lymph drainage to compression therapy for breast cancer related lymphedema: a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 86(2):95–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BREA.0000032978.67677.9f
Ramos SM, O’Donnell LS, Knight G (1999) Edema volume, not timing, is the key to success in lymphedema treatment. Am J Surg 178(4):311–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00185-3
Dayes IS, Whelan TJ, Julian JA, Parpia S, Pritchard KI, D’Souza DP, Kligman L, Reise D, LeBlanc L, McNeely ML, Manchul L, Wiernikowski J, Levine MN (2013) Randomized trial of decongestive lymphatic therapy for the treatment of lymphedema in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 31(30):3758–3763. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.7192
Lytvyn L, Zeraatkar D, Anbari AB, Ginex PK, Zoratti M, Niburski K, Sadeghirad B, Siedler M, Thabane L, Morgan RL (2020) Conservative intervention strategies for adult cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Oncol Nurs Forum 47(5):E171-e189. https://doi.org/10.1188/20.Onf.E171-e189
Rangon FB, da Silva J, Dibai-Filho AV, Guirro RRJ, Guirro ECO (2022) Effects of complex physical therapy and multimodal approaches on lymphedema secondary to breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 103(2):353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.06.027
Sierla R, Dylke ES, Kilbreath S (2018) A systematic review of the outcomes used to assess upper body lymphedema. Cancer Invest 36(8):458–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357907.2018.1517362
Pain SJ, Purushotham AD (2000) Lymphoedema following surgery for breast cancer. Br J Surg 87(9):1128–1141. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01569.x
Perdomo M, Davies C, Levenhagen K, Ryans K, Gilchrist L (2023) Patient education for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv 17:384–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-022-01262-4
Framework L (2006) International consensus: best practice for the management of lymphoedema. MEP Ltd, London
House of Commons Debate (2018) Lymphoedema services, 27 March, vol 638, cc. 290-296WH. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-03-27/debates/5B4D1112-E461-4676-90BC-0352753C5525/LymphoedemaServices. Accessed 20 Nov 2022
National Lymphoedema Partnership (2019) Commissioning guidance for lymphoedema services for adults in the United Kingdom. British Lymphology Society. https://www.thebls.com/documents-library/commissioning-guidance-for-lymphoedema-services-for-adults-in-the-united-kingdom. Accessed 20 Nov 2022
Omar MTA, Al-Dhwayan NM, Gwada RFM, Armer JM (2022) Lymphedema rehabilitation: provision and practice patterns among service providers: National survey. Int Wound J 19(2):339–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13634
Keast DH, Moffatt C, Janmohammad A (2019) Lymphedema impact and prevalence international study: the Canadian data. Lymphat Res Biol 17(2):178–186. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2019.0014
Stuiver MM, ten Tusscher MR, Agasi-Idenburg CS, Lucas C, Aaronson NK, Bossuyt PM (2015) Conservative interventions for preventing clinically detectable upper-limb lymphoedema in patients who are at risk of developing lymphoedema after breast cancer therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD009765. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009765.pub2
Jeffs E, Ream E, Taylor C, Bick D (2018) Clinical effectiveness of decongestive treatments on excess arm volume and patient-centered outcomes in women with early breast cancer-related arm lymphedema: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 16(2):453–506. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003185
Tugwell P, Welch VA, Karunananthan S, Maxwell LJ, Akl EA, Avey MT, Bhutta ZA, Brouwers MC, Clark JP, Cook S, Cuervo LG, Curran JA, Ghogomu ET, Graham IG, Grimshaw JM, Hutton B, Ioannidis JPA, Jordan Z, Jull JE, Kristjansson E, Langlois EV, Little J, Lyddiatt A, Martin JE, Marušić A, Mbuagbaw L, Moher D, Morton RL, Nasser M, Page MJ, Pardo Pardo J, Petkovic J, Petticrew M, Pigott T, Pottie K, Rada G, Rader T, Riddle AY, Rothstein H, Schüneman HJ, Shamseer L, Shea BJ, Simeon R, Siontis KC, Smith M, Soares-Weiser K, Thavorn K, Tovey D, Vachon B, Valentine J, Villemaire R, Walker P, Weeks L, Wells G, Wilson DB, White H (2020) When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist. BMJ 370:m2864. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2864
Jeffs E, Bick D (2014) The effectiveness of decongestive treatments provided within 12 months of developing a swollen arm for women with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review protocol of quantitative evidence. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep 12(11):105–116. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1886
Jeffs E, Bick D (2015) The effectiveness of decongestive treatments provided within 12 months of developing a swollen arm for women with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review protocol of quantitative evidence. PROSPEROCRD42015015843. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015015843. Accessed 20 Nov 2022
Aromataris E, Pearson A (2014) The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs 114(3):53–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c
Joanna Briggs Institute (2014) Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual, 2014th edn. Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L (2020) Chapter 3: systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (eds) JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-03
Lasinski BB, McKillip Thrift K, Squire D, Austin MK, Smith KM, Wanchai A, Green JM, Stewart BR, Cormier JN, Armer JM (2012) A systematic review of the evidence for complete decongestive therapy in the treatment of lymphedema from 2004 to 2011. Pm & R 4(8):580–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.05.003
Davies C, Levenhagen K, Ryans K, Perdomo M, Gilchrist L (2020) Interventions for breast cancer-related lymphedema: clinical practice guideline from the academy of oncologic physical therapy of APTA. Phys Ther 100(7):1163–1179. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa087
Marchica P, D’Arpa S, Magno S, Rossi C, Forcina L, Capizzi V, Oieni S, Amato C, Piazza D, Gebbia V (2021) Integrated treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a descriptive review of the state of the art. Anticancer Res 41(7):3233–3246. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15109
Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, Nasser M, Meerpohl J, Post PN, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist G, Rind D, Akl EA, Schünemann HJ (2013) GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 66(7):719–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013
Kaviani A, Fateh M, Yousefi Nooraie R, Alinagi-zadeh MR, Ataie-Fashtami L (2006) Low-level laser therapy in management of postmastectomy lymphedema. Lasers Med Sci 21(2):90–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-006-0380-3
Bahtiyarca ZT, Can A, Ekşioğlu E, Çakcı A (2019) The addition of self-lymphatic drainage to compression therapy instead of manual lymphatic drainage in the first phase of complex decongestive therapy for treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized-controlled, prospective study. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil 65(4):309–317. https://doi.org/10.5606/tftrd.2019.3126
Gradalski T, Ochalek K, Kurpiewska J (2015) Complex decongestive lymphatic therapy with or without Vodder II manual lymph drainage in more severe chronic postmastectomy upper limb lymphedema: a randomized noninferiority prospective study. J Pain Symptom Manage 50(6):750–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.06.017
Kim DS, Sim YJ, Jeong HJ, Kim GC (2010) Effect of active resistive exercise on breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(12):1844–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.09.008
Oh SH, Ryu SH, Jeong HJ, Lee JH, Sim YJ (2019) Effects of different bandaging methods for treating patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Ann Rehabil Med 43(6):677–685. https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2019.43.6.677
Abbasi B, Mirzakhany N, AngootiOshnari L, Irani A, Hosseinzadeh S, Tabatabaei SM, Haghighat S (2018) The effect of relaxation techniques on edema, anxiety and depression in post-mastectomy lymphedema patients undergoing comprehensive decongestive therapy: A clinical trial. PLoS One 13(1):e0190231. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190231
Haghighat S, Lotfi-Tokaldany M, Khadem Maboudi AA, Karami M, Bahadori A, Weiss J (2013) Predictive factors of response to phase I complete decongestive therapy in upper extremity lymphedema following breast carcinoma in Iran. Lymphology 46(2):97–104
Michopoulos E, Papathanasiou G, Krousaniotaki K, Vathiotis I, Troupis T, Dimakakos E (2021) Lymphedema duration as a predictive factor of efficacy of complete decongestive therapy. Lymphology 54(3):140–153
Hwang JM, Hwang JH, Kim TW, Lee SY, Chang HJ, Chu IH (2013) Long-term effects of complex decongestive therapy in breast cancer patients with arm lymphedema after axillary dissection. Ann Rehabil Med 37(5):690–697. https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2013.37.5.690
Ancukiewicz M, Miller CL, Skolny MN, O'Toole J, Warren LE, Jammallo LS, Specht MC, Taghian AG (2012) Comparison of relative versus absolute arm size change as criteria for quantifying breast cancer-related lymphedema: the flaws in current studies and need for universal methodology. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135(1):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2111-8
Blom KY, Johansson KI, Nilsson-Wikmar LB, Brogårdh CB (2022) Early intervention with compression garments prevents progression in mild breast cancer-related arm lymphedema: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Oncol 61(7):897–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186x.2022.2081932
Bundred N, Foden P, Todd C, Morris J, Watterson D, Purushotham A, Bramley M, Riches K, Hodgkiss T, Evans A, Skene A, Keeley V (2020) Increases in arm volume predict lymphoedema and quality of life deficits after axillary surgery: a prospective cohort study. Br J Cancer 123(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0844-4
Rafn BB, Christensen J, Larsen A, Bloomquist K (2022) Prospective surveillance for breast cancer–related arm lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 40(9):1009–1026. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.21.01681
Shah C, Arthur DW, Wazer D, Khan A, Ridner S, Vicini F (2016) The impact of early detection and intervention of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review [Review]. Cancer Med 5(6):1154–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.691
Finnane A, Janda M, Hayes SC (2015) Does treatment alleviate lymphedema symptoms? A cross-sectional study evaluating patient perspectives. Lymphology 48(3):110–120
Jeffs E, Ream E, Shewbridge A, Cowan-Dickie S, Crawshaw D, Huit M, Wiseman T (2016) Exploring patient perception of success and benefit in self-management of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema. Eur J Oncol Nurs 20:173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2015.08.001
Oremus M, Dayes I, Walker K, Raina P (2012) Systematic review: conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema. BMC Cancer 12(6):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-6
Preston N, Seers K, Mortimer PS (2004) Physical therapies for reducing and controlling lymphoedema of the limbs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):38. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003141.pub2
Armer JM, Feldman JL, Ostby PL, Thrift KM, Lasinski BB, Beck MS, Rodrick JR, Norton S, Sun Y, Udmuangpia T, Armer NC, Stewart BR (2016) Simplifying evidence-based management of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Expert Rev Qual Life Cancer Care 1(5):389–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/23809000.2016.1230019
Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (eds) (2013) Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. The GRADE Working Group. https://guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook. Accessed 12 Nov 2022
Funding
This work was supported by a NIHR/HEE Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship, Ms Eunice Jeffs, CDRF-2013–04-023. This paper is the first of the series of publications from the doctoral thesis: Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of early decongestive treatment compared to usual care for women newly presenting with breast cancer–related lymphoedema of the upper limb.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E.J. conceived and developed the systematic review protocol with all authors commenting on protocol. E.J. performed all literature searches and data collation, determined study eligibility, assessed methodological quality of included papers, extracted and analysed data, wrote the first draft of manuscript and prepared all tables, figures and supporting information. D.B. assessed methodological quality of included papers and reviewed extracted and analysed data. All authors critically revised the work and read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
None required. For the protocol, see Jeffs & Bick, 2014 [37].
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Jeffs, E., Ream, E., Taylor, C. et al. Evidence for the clinical effectiveness of decongestive lymphoedema treatment for breast cancer–related arm lymphoedema, a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 32, 568 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08759-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08759-x