Karin Johansson

Bio: Karin Johansson is an academic researcher from Lund University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Lymphedema & Breast cancer. The author has an hindex of 22, co-authored 67 publications receiving 2467 citations. Previous affiliations of Karin Johansson include American Physical Therapy Association.

Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to review the incidence of upper-body morbidity (arm and breast symptoms, impairments, and lymphedema), methods for diagnosis, and prevention and treatment strategies. It was also the purpose to highlight the evidence base for integration of prospective surveillance for upper-body morbidity within standard clinical care of women with breast cancer. Between 10% and 64% of women report upper-body symptoms between 6 months and 3 years after breast cancer, and approximately 20% develop lymphedema. Symptoms remain common into longer-term survivorship, and although lymphedema may be transient for some, those who present with mild lymphedema are at increased risk of developing moderate to severe lymphedema. The etiology of morbidity seems to be multifactorial, with the most consistent risk factors being those associated with extent of treatment. However, known risk factors cannot reliably distinguish between those who will and will not develop upper-body morbidity. Upper-body morbidity may be treatable with physical therapy. There is also evidence in support of integrating regular surveillance for upper-body morbidity into the routine care provided to women with breast cancer, with early diagnosis potentially contributing to more effective management and prevention of progression of these conditions.

A prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation for women with breast cancer

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The current model of care for individuals with breast cancer focuses on treatment of the disease, followed by ongoing surveillance to detect recurrence. This approach lacks attention to patients' physical and functional well-being. Breast cancer treatment sequelae can lead to physical impairments and functional limitations. Common impairments include pain, fatigue, upper-extremity dysfunction, lymphedema, weakness, joint arthralgia, neuropathy, weight gain, cardiovascular effects, and osteoporosis. Evidence supports prospective surveillance for early identification and treatment as a means to prevent or mitigate many of these concerns. This article proposes a prospective surveillance model for physical rehabilitation and exercise that can be integrated with disease treatment to create a more comprehensive approach to survivorship health care. The goals of the model are to promote surveillance for common physical impairments and functional limitations associated with breast cancer treatment; to provide education to facilitate early identification of impairments; to introduce rehabilitation and exercise intervention when physical impairments are identified; and to promote and support physical activity and exercise behaviors through the trajectory of disease treatment and survivorship. METHODS: The model is the result of a multidisciplinary meeting of research and clinical experts in breast cancer survivorship and representatives of relevant professional and advocacy organizations. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model identifies time points during breast cancer care for assessment of and education about physical impairments. Ultimately, implementation of the model may influence incidence and severity of breast cancer treatment-related physical impairments. As such, the model seeks to optimize function during and after treatment and positively influence a growing survivorship community. (Less)

Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment

Abstract: Background More than one in five patients who undergo treatment for breast cancer will develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BCRL can occur as a result of breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. BCRL can negatively impact comfort, function, and quality of life (QoL). Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), a type of hands-on therapy, is frequently used for BCRL and often as part of complex decongestive therapy (CDT). CDT is a fourfold conservative treatment which includes MLD, compression therapy (consisting of compression bandages, compression sleeves, or other types of compression garments), skin care, and lymph-reducing exercises (LREs). Phase 1 of CDT is to reduce swelling; Phase 2 is to maintain the reduced swelling. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of MLD in treating BCRL. Search methods We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform), and Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register from root to 24May 2013. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of women with BCRL. The intervention was MLD. The primary outcomes were (1) volumetric changes, (2) adverse events. Secondary outcomes were (1) function, (2) subjective sensations, (3) QoL, (4) cost of care. Data collection and analysis We collected data on three volumetric outcomes. (1) LE (lymphedema) volume was defined as the amount of excess fluid left in the arm after treatment, calculated as volume in mL of affected arm post-treatment minus unaffected arm post-treatment. (2) Volume reduction was defined as the amount of fluid reduction in mL from before to after treatment calculated as the pretreatment LE volume of the affected arm minus the post-treatment LE volume of the affected arm. (3) Per cent reduction was defined as the proportion of fluid reduced relative to the baseline excess volume, calculated as volume reduction divided by baseline LE volume multiplied by 100. We entered trial data into ReviewManger 5.2 (RevMan), pooled data using a fixed-effect model, and analyzed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also explored subgroups to determine whether mild BCRL compared to moderate or severe BCRL, and BCRL less than a year compared to more than a year was associated with a better response to MLD. Main results Six trials were included. Based on similar designs, trials clustered in three categories. (1) MLD + standard physiotherapy versus standard physiotherapy (one trial) showed significant improvements in both groups from baseline but no significant between-groups differences for per cent reduction. (2) MLD + compression bandaging versus compression bandaging (two trials) showed significant per cent reductions of 30% to 38.6% for compression bandaging alone, and an additional 7.11% reduction forMLD (MD7.11%, 95% CI 1.75% to 12.47%; two RCTs; 83 participants). Volume reduction was borderline significant (P = 0.06). LE volume was not significant. Subgroup analyses was significant showing that participants with mild-to-moderate BCRL were better responders to MLD than were moderate-to-severe participants. (3) MLD+ compression therapy versus nonMLDtreatment + compression therapy (three trials) were too varied to pool. One of the trials compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus pneumatic pump. Volume reduction was statistically significant favoringMLD (MD 47.00 mL, 95% CI 15.25 mL to 78.75 mL; 1 RCT; 24 participants), per cent reduction was borderline significant (P= 0.07), and LE volume was not significant. A second trial compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus selfadministered simple lymphatic drainage (SLD), and was significant forMLD for LE volume (MD -230.00 mL, 95% CI -450.84 mL to -9.16 mL; 1 RCT; 31 participants) but not for volume reduction or per cent reduction. A third trial of MLD + compression bandaging versus SLD + compression bandaging was not significant (P = 0.10) for per cent reduction, the only outcome measured (MD 11.80%, 95% CI -2.47% to 26.07%, 28 participants). MLD was well tolerated and safe in all trials. Two trials measured function as range of motion with conflicting results. One trial reported significant within-groups gains for both groups, but no between-groups differences. The other trial reported there were no significant within-groups gains and did not report between-groups results. One trial measured strength and reported no significant changes in either group. Two trials measured QoL, but results were not usable because one trial did not report any results, and the other trial did not report between-groups results. Four trials measured sensations such as pain and heaviness. Overall, the sensations were significantly reduced in both groups over baseline, but with no between-groups differences. No trials reported cost of care. Trials were small ranging from 24 to 45 participants. Most trials appeared to randomize participants adequately. However, in four trials the person measuring the swelling knew what treatment the participants were receiving, and this could have biased results. Authors' conclusions MLD is safe and may offer additional benefit to compression bandaging for swelling reduction. Compared to individuals with moderate to-severe BCRL, those with mild-to-moderate BCRL may be the ones who benefit from adding MLD to an intensive course of treatment with compression bandaging. This finding, however, needs to be confirmed by randomized data. In trials where MLD and sleeve were compared with a nonMLD treatment and sleeve, volumetric outcomes were inconsistent within the same trial. Research is needed to identify themost clinically meaningful volumetric measurement, to incorporate newer technologies in LE assessment, and to assess other clinically relevant outcomes such as fibrotic tissue formation. Findings were contradictory for function (range of motion), and inconclusive for quality of life. For symptoms such as pain and heaviness, 60% to 80% of participants reported feeling better regardless of which treatment they received. One-year follow-up suggests that once swelling had been reduced, participants were likely to keep their swelling down if they continued to use a custom-made sleeve. (Less)

A prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation for women with breast cancer

Abstract: Free to read Background: The current model of care for breast cancer is focused on disease treatment followed by ongoing recurrence surveillance. This approach lacks attention to the patients’ physical and functional well-being. Breast cancer treatment sequelae can lead to physical impairments and functional limitations. Common impairments include pain, fatigue, upper extremity dysfunction, lymphedema, weakness, joint arthralgia, neuropathy, weight gain, cardiovascular effects, and osteoporosis. Evidence supports prospective surveillance for early identification and treatment as a means to prevent or mitigate many of these concerns. Purpose: This paper proposes a prospective surveillance model for physical rehabilitation and exercise that can be integrated with disease treatment to create a more comprehensive approach to survivorship health care. The goals of the model are to promote surveillance for common physical impairments and functional limitations associated with breast cancer treatment, to provide education to facilitate early identification of impairments, to introduce rehabilitation and exercise intervention when physical impairments are identified and to promote and support physical activity and exercise behaviors through the trajectory of disease treatment and survivorship. Methods: The model is the result of a multi-disciplinary meeting of research and clinical experts in breast cancer survivorship and representatives of relevant professional and advocacy organizations. Outcomes: The proposed model identifies time points during breast cancer care for assessment of and education about physical impairments. Ultimately, implementation of the model may influence incidence and severity of breast cancer treatment related physical impairments. As such, the model seeks to optimize function during and following treatment and positively influence a growing survivorship community.

A randomized study comparing manual lymph drainage with sequential pneumatic compression for treatment of postoperative arm lymphedema.

Abstract: We compared manual lymph drainage (MLD) with sequential pneumatic compression (SPC) for treatment of unilateral arm lymphedema in 28 women previously treated for breast cancer. After 2 weeks of therapy with a standard compression sleeve (Part I) with maintenance of a steady arm volume, each patient was randomly assigned to either one of two treatment regimens (Part II). MLD was performed according to the Vodder technique for 45 min/day and SPC was performed with a pressure of 40-60 mmHg for 2 hours/day. Both treatments were carried out for 2 weeks. Arm volume was measured by water displacement. Arm mobility, strength, and subjective assessments were also determined. Lymphedema was reduced by 49 ml (7% reduction) (p = 0.01) in the total group during Part I. During Part II, the MLD group decreased by 75 ml (15% reduction) (p < 0.001) and the SPC group by 28 ml (7% reduction) (p = 0.03). The total group reported a decrease of tension (p = 0.004) and heaviness (p = 0.01) during Part I. During Part II, only the MLD group reported a further decrease of tension (p = 0.01) and heaviness (p = 0.008). MLD and SPC each significantly decreased arm volume but no significant difference was detected between the two treatment methods.

Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Summary Background The body of evidence related to breast-cancer-related lymphoedema incidence and risk factors has substantially grown and improved in quality over the past decade. We assessed the incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer and explored the evidence available for lymphoedema risk factors. Methods We searched Academic Search Elite, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (clinical trials), and Medline for research articles that assessed the incidence or prevalence of, or risk factors for, arm lymphoedema after breast cancer, published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 30, 2012. We extracted incidence data and calculated corresponding exact binomial 95% CIs. We used random effects models to calculate a pooled overall estimate of lymphoedema incidence, with subgroup analyses to assess the effect of different study designs, countries of study origin, diagnostic methods, time since diagnosis, and extent of axillary surgery. We assessed risk factors and collated them into four levels of evidence, depending on consistency of findings and quality and quantity of studies contributing to findings. Findings 72 studies met the inclusion criteria for the assessment of lymphoedema incidence, giving a pooled estimate of 16·6% (95% CI 13·6–20·2). Our estimate was 21·4% (14·9–29·8) when restricted to data from prospective cohort studies (30 studies). The incidence of arm lymphoedema seemed to increase up to 2 years after diagnosis or surgery of breast cancer (24 studies with time since diagnosis or surgery of 12 to Interpretation Our findings suggest that more than one in five women who survive breast cancer will develop arm lymphoedema. A clear need exists for improved understanding of contributing risk factors, as well as of prevention and management strategies to reduce the individual and public health burden of this disabling and distressing disorder. Funding The National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia.

Statics and dynamics of worm-like surfactant micelles

Abstract: In certain surfactant solutions, such as aqueous cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) in 0.1 M KBr, the amphiphiles are found to assemble reversibly into long, flexible worm-like micelles. Above a few per cent surfactant, these form an entangled viscoelastic fluid, reminiscent of a polymer solution. The authors review some recent experimental and theoretical progress concerning the equilibrium statistics and dynamics of these systems, which differ from normal polymer solutions in that the chains can break and reform reversibly.

American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline

Abstract: The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1,073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and Journal of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission by the American Cancer Society or the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Lymphedema: a comprehensive review.

Abstract: Background: Lymphedema is a chronic, debilitating condition that has traditionally been seen as refractory or incurable. Recent years have brought new advances in the study of lymphedema pathophysiology. as well as diagnostic and therapeutic tools that are changing this perspective. Objective: To provide a systematic approach to evaluating and managing patients with lymphedema. Methods: We performed MEDLINE searches of the English-language literature (1966 to March 2006) using the terms lymphedema, breast cancer-associated lymphedema, lymphatic complications, lymphatic imaging, decongestive therapy, and surgical treatment of lymphedema. Relevant bibliographies and International Society of Lymphology guidelines were also reviewed. Results: In the United States, the populations primarily affected by lymphedema are patients undergoing treatment of malignancy, particularly women treated for breast cancer. A thorough evaluation of patients presenting with extremity swelling should include identification of prior surgical or radiation therapy for malignancy, as well as documentation of other risk factors for lymphedema, such as prior trauma to or infection of the affected limb. Physical examination should focus on differentiating signs of lymphedema from other causes of systemic or localized swelling. Lymphatic dysfunction can be visualized through lymphoscintigraphy; the diagnosis of lymphedema can also be confirmed through other imaging modalities, including CT or MRI. The mainstay of therapy in diagnosed cases of lymphedema involves compression garment use, as well as intensive bandaging and lymphatic massage. For patients who are unresponsive to conservative therapy; several surgical options with varied proven efficacies have been used in appropriate candidates, including excisional approaches, microsurgical lymphatic anastomoses, and circumferential suction-assisted lipectomy, an approach that has shown promise for long-term relief of symptoms. Conclusions: The diagnosis of lymphedema requires careful attention to patient risk factors and specific findings on physical examination. Noninvasive diagnostic tools and lymphatic imaging can be helpful to confirm the diagnosis of lymphedema or to address a challenging clinical presentation. Initial treatment with decongestive lymphatic therapy can provide significant improvement in patient symptoms and volume reduction of edematous extremities. Selected patients who are unresponsive to conservative therapy can achieve similar outcomes with surgical intervention, most promisingly suction-assisted lipectomy. (Less)