Head & neck · 2026
Short-Term Outcomes of Advanced Pneumatic Compression Device Versus Usual Care Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Multi-Site Randomized Clinical Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Murphy Barbara A, Smith Derek K, Kline-Quiroz Cristina M, Jensen Katrina M, Sukari Ammar W, Bhayani Mihir K, Mehta Vikas, Quon Harry, Shah Jennifer L, Willey Christopher D, Dunlap Neal E, Lee Hoon K, Aulino Joseph M, Ridner Sheila H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Two-month outcomes of advanced pneumatic compression device (APCD) and usual care (UC) in Head and Neck Cancer survivors with previously untreated lymphedema were compared.
METHODS: Participants in this multisite, randomized clinical trial were randomized to APCD or UC. The primary endpoint was severity of lymphedema symptoms. Secondary endpoints were anatomical lymphedema changes, biopsychosocial outcomes, and barriers to care.
RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-six participants were enrolled (119 APCD, 117 UC). Analysis was intention-to-treat. Lymphedema-associated symptom burden measured using the VHNSS and LSIDS was improved to a similar degree in both groups. APCD demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in external soft tissue swelling assessed by digital photography. No difference in CT imaging measures of lymphedema was noted. UC participants experienced barriers to care.
CONCLUSIONS: APCD is an effective treatment for lymphedema in HNCS. The APCD addresses clinically significant barriers to therapist guided treatment. A hybrid approach may be complementary and optimize patient outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04797390.
METHODS: Participants in this multisite, randomized clinical trial were randomized to APCD or UC. The primary endpoint was severity of lymphedema symptoms. Secondary endpoints were anatomical lymphedema changes, biopsychosocial outcomes, and barriers to care.
RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-six participants were enrolled (119 APCD, 117 UC). Analysis was intention-to-treat. Lymphedema-associated symptom burden measured using the VHNSS and LSIDS was improved to a similar degree in both groups. APCD demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in external soft tissue swelling assessed by digital photography. No difference in CT imaging measures of lymphedema was noted. UC participants experienced barriers to care.
CONCLUSIONS: APCD is an effective treatment for lymphedema in HNCS. The APCD addresses clinically significant barriers to therapist guided treatment. A hybrid approach may be complementary and optimize patient outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04797390.