Surgery · 2019
Improving the quality of life in breast cancer survivors at risk for lymphedema.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Bland Keiva L, Kosir Mary A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Certain treatments increase lymphedema risk in breast cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to determine whether quality of life improved with preoperative teaching by a lymphedema expert.
METHODS: Preoperative breast cancer patients were prospectively randomized into intervention group 1 or control group 2. Group 1 had a discussion with the lymphedema expert and at 6 months, in addition to the preoperative surgical discussion and literature given to all. Arm measurements and quality of life evaluation with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer were completed preoperatively and at intervals for up to 3 years. Lymphedema was verified with a 10% increase in volume or circumference. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed on data.
RESULTS: There were 119 evaluable patients with no differences between groups 1 and 2. The rate of acute lymphedema was 51.5% (33 of 64) for group 1 and 47.2% (26 of 55) for group 2. Chronic lymphedema presented in 13 patients (9.3% group 1 and 12.7% group 2). Lymphedema was significantly associated with number of lymph nodes resected (P < .001). Significant findings in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer were at 6 months for all and after diagnosis in lymphedema positive patients.
CONCLUSION: Structured lymphedema teaching can help to improve quality of life in lymphedema patients.
METHODS: Preoperative breast cancer patients were prospectively randomized into intervention group 1 or control group 2. Group 1 had a discussion with the lymphedema expert and at 6 months, in addition to the preoperative surgical discussion and literature given to all. Arm measurements and quality of life evaluation with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer were completed preoperatively and at intervals for up to 3 years. Lymphedema was verified with a 10% increase in volume or circumference. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed on data.
RESULTS: There were 119 evaluable patients with no differences between groups 1 and 2. The rate of acute lymphedema was 51.5% (33 of 64) for group 1 and 47.2% (26 of 55) for group 2. Chronic lymphedema presented in 13 patients (9.3% group 1 and 12.7% group 2). Lymphedema was significantly associated with number of lymph nodes resected (P < .001). Significant findings in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer were at 6 months for all and after diagnosis in lymphedema positive patients.
CONCLUSION: Structured lymphedema teaching can help to improve quality of life in lymphedema patients.