Robert Weiss

Bio: Robert Weiss is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 162 citations.

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)

Breast cancer-related lymphedema: risk factors, precautionary measures, and treatments.

Abstract: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a negative sequela of breast cancer treatment, and well-established risk factors include axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and regional lymph node radiation (RLNR). BCRL affects approximately 1 in 5 patients treated for breast cancer, and it has a significant negative impact on patients’ quality of life after breast cancer treatment, serving as a reminder of previous illness. This paper is a comprehensive review of the current evidence regarding BCRL risk factors, precautionary guidelines, prospective screening, early intervention, and surgical and non-surgical treatment techniques. Through establishing evidence-based BCRL risk factors, researchers and clinicians are better able to prevent, anticipate, and provide early intervention for BCRL. Clinicians can identify patients at high risk and utilize prospective screening programs, which incorporate objective measurements, patient reported outcome measures (PROM), and clinical examination, thereby creating opportunities for early intervention and, accordingly, improving BCRL prognosis. Innovative surgical techniques that minimize and/or prophylactically correct lymphatic disruption, such as axillary reverse mapping (ARM) and lymphatic-venous anastomoses (LVAs), are promising avenues for reducing BCRL incidence. Nonetheless, for those patients with BCRL who remain unresponsive to conservative methods like complete decongestive therapy (CDT), surgical treatment options aiming to reduce limb volume or restore lymphatic flow may prove to be palliative or corrective. It is only through a strong team-based approach that such a continuum of care can exist, and a multidisciplinary approach to BCRL screening, intervention, and research is therefore strongly encouraged.

Lymphedema after Breast Cancer Treatment.

Abstract: Key Clinical Points Lymphedema after Breast Cancer Treatment Breast cancer–related lymphedema is the most common form of lymphedema in the United States and other developed nations. Axillary lymph-...

Cancer-associated secondary lymphoedema.

Abstract: Lymphoedema is an oedematous condition with a specific and complex tissue biology. In the clinical context of cancer, the pathogenesis of lymphoedema ensues most typically from the modalities employed to stage and treat the cancer (in particular, surgery and radiotherapy). Despite advances in cancer treatment, lifelong lymphoedema (limb swelling and the accompanying chronic inflammatory processes) affects approximately one in seven individuals treated for cancer, although estimates of lymphoedema prevalence following cancer treatment vary widely depending upon the diagnostic criteria used and the duration of follow-up. The natural history of cancer-associated lymphoedema is defined by increasing limb girth, fibrosis, inflammation, abnormal fat deposition and eventual marked cutaneous pathology, which also increases the risk of recurrent skin infections. Lymphoedema can substantially affect the daily quality of life of patients, as, in addition to aesthetic concerns, it can cause discomfort and affect the ability to carry out daily tasks. Clinical diagnosis is dependent on comparison of the affected region with the equivalent region on the unaffected side and, if available, with pre-surgical measurements. Surveillance is indicated in this high-risk population to facilitate disease detection at the early stages, when therapeutic interventions are most effective. Treatment modalities include conservative physical strategies that feature complex decongestive therapy (including compression garments) and intermittent pneumatic compression, as well as an emerging spectrum of surgical interventions, including liposuction for late-stage disease. The future application of pharmacological and microsurgical therapeutics for cancer-associated lymphoedema holds great promise.

Survivorship, Version 2.2018: Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Abstract: The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period. This portion of the guidelines describes recommendations regarding the management of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and lymphedema. In addition, recommendations regarding immunizations and the prevention of infections in cancer survivors are included.