Evidence Hub

The 6 month interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial assessing the quality of life in patients with breast cancer related lymphedema undergoing lymphaticovenous anastomosis vs. conservative therapy

Y. M. Jonis, J. Wolfs, S. Hummelink, H. Tielemans, X. Keuter, S. V. van Kuijk, D. J. O. Ulrich, R. van der Hulst et al.

Scientific Reports, 2024

46 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic condition with a detrimental impact on psychosocial and physical well-being. Lymphaticovenous anastomosis has shown promising results in alleviating physical symptoms and increasing quality of life in patients with BCRL. The aim of the study is to evaluate the effect on health related quality of life (HrQol) after LVA surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with BCRL. The study is a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Adult women with unilateral BCRL, with early stage lymphedema and viable lymphatic vessels were included. The primary outcome measure was HrQol measured by the lymphedema functioning disability and health (Lymph-ICF) questionnaire. The secondary outcomes were volume difference measured by the water displacement method; the Upper Extremity Lymphedema (UEL) index; and daily use of the compression garments after 3 and 6 months. For this interim analysis 46 patients per group were included. There was a significant improvement in the domains in physical and mental function in the Lymph-ICF questionnaire in the LVA group after 6 months, (− 16.46 ± 18.5, p 0.05, CDT-group; − 2.65 ± 18.2, p < 0.05). Furthermore, there was no significant volume reduction in both groups (LVA-group: 20.04 ± 196.40, p = 0.497, CDT: 33.98 ± 189.87, p = 0.236). In the LVA group, 41% partially of completely stopped wearing the compression garments after six months whereas in the CDT group 0% discontinued to use…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 46 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free