A Contemporary, Population-Based Study of Lymphedema Risk Factors in Older Women with Breast Cancer
- 201 Downloads
We studied potential risk factors for lymphedema in a contemporary population of older breast cancer patients.
Telephone surveys were conducted among women (65–89 years) identified from Medicare claims as having initial breast cancer surgery in 2003. Lymphedema was classified by self-report. Surgery and pathology information was obtained from Medicare claims and the state cancer registries.
Of 1,338 patients treated by 707 surgeons, 24% underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and 57% axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). At a median of 48 months postoperatively, 193 (14.4%) had lymphedema. Lymphedema developed in 7% of the 319 patients who underwent SLNB and in 21% of the 759 patients who underwent ALND. When controlling for patient age, tumor size, type of breast cancer, type of breast and axillary surgery, receipt of radiation, chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy, and surgeon case volume, the independent predictors of lymphedema were removal of more than five lymph nodes [odds ratio (OR) 4.68–5.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36–19.74 for 6–15 nodes; OR 10.50, 95% CI 2.88–38.32 for >15 nodes] and presence of lymph node metastases (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.21–3.24).
Four years postoperatively, 14% of a contemporary, population-based cohort of elderly breast cancer survivors had self-reported lymphedema. In this group of predominately community-based surgeons, the number of lymph nodes removed is more predictive of lymphedema rather than whether SLNB or ALND was performed. As more women with breast cancer undergo only SLNB, it is essential that they still be counseled on their risk for lymphedema.
KeywordsSentinel Lymph Node Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Breast Cancer Survivor Lymphedema Axillary Lymph Node Dissection
This research was supported by Grant Numbers K07CA125586 (Dr. Yen) and R01CA81379 (Dr. Nattinger) from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.
- 3.The Medical and Psychological Concerns of Cancer Survivors after Treatment. In: Hewitt ME, Greenfield S, Stovall E, editors. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in translation. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2006. p. 87–9.Google Scholar
- 16.Langer I, Guller U, Berclaz G, Koechli OR, Schaer G, Fehr MK, et al. Morbidity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLN) alone versus SLN and completion axillary lymph node dissection after breast cancer surgery: a prospective Swiss multicenter study on 659 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;245:452–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lucci A, McCall LM, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Reintgen DS, Blumencranz PW, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3657–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Fleissig A, Fallowfield LJ, Langridge CI, Johnson L, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Post-operative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;95:279–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, Inc. http://www.naaccr.org. Accessed 29 Sept 2008.
- 27.Olson JA Jr, McCall LM, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Reintgen DS, Blumencranz PW, et al. Impact of immediate versus delayed axillary node dissection on surgical outcomes in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes: results from American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trials Z0010 and Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3530–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kuehn T, Klauss W, Darsow M, Regele S, Flock F, Maiterth C, et al. Long-term morbidity following axillary dissection in breast cancer patients–clinical assessment, significance for life quality and the impact of demographic, oncologic and therapeutic factors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;64:275–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar