Does the effect of weight lifting on lymphedema following breast cancer differ by diagnostic method: Results from a randomized controlled trial

Sandra C. Hayes, Rebecca M. Speck, Elizabeth Reimet, Azadeh Stark, Kathryn H. Schmitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The lymphedema diagnostic method used in descriptive or intervention studies may influence results found. The purposes of this work were to compare baseline lymphedema prevalence in the physical activity and lymphedema (PAL) trial cohort and to subsequently compare the effect of the weight-lifting intervention on lymphedema, according to four standard diagnostic methods. The PAL trial was a randomized controlled intervention study, involving 295 women who had previously been treated for breast cancer, and evaluated the effect of 12 months of weight lifting on lymphedema status. Four diagnostic methods were used to evaluate lymphedema outcomes: (i) interlimb volume difference through water displacement, (ii) interlimb size difference through sum of arm circumferences, (iii) interlimb impedance ratio using bioimpedance spectroscopy, and (iv) a validated self-report survey. Of the 295 women who participated in the PAL trial, between 22 and 52% were considered to have lymphedema at baseline according to the four diagnostic criteria used. No between-group differences were noted in the proportion of women who had a change in interlimb volume, interlimb size, interlimb ratio, or survey score of ≥5, ≥5, ≥10%, and 1 unit, respectively (cumulative incidence ratio at study end for each measure ranged between 0.6 and 0.8, with confidence intervals spanning 1.0). The variation in proportions of women within the PAL trial considered to have lymphoedema at baseline highlights the potential impact of the diagnostic criteria on population surveillance regarding prevalence of this common morbidity of treatment. Importantly though, progressive weight lifting was shown to be safe for women following breast cancer, even for those at risk or with lymphedema, irrespective of the diagnostic criteria used.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)227-234
Number of pages8
JournalBreast Cancer Research and Treatment
Volume130
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2011

Fingerprint

Weight Lifting
Lymphedema
Randomized Controlled Trials
Exercise
Breast Cancer Lymphedema
Population Surveillance
Breast Neoplasms
Electric Impedance
Self Report

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

@article{e0744f0befac403a9b89fe4effd45172,
title = "Does the effect of weight lifting on lymphedema following breast cancer differ by diagnostic method: Results from a randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "The lymphedema diagnostic method used in descriptive or intervention studies may influence results found. The purposes of this work were to compare baseline lymphedema prevalence in the physical activity and lymphedema (PAL) trial cohort and to subsequently compare the effect of the weight-lifting intervention on lymphedema, according to four standard diagnostic methods. The PAL trial was a randomized controlled intervention study, involving 295 women who had previously been treated for breast cancer, and evaluated the effect of 12 months of weight lifting on lymphedema status. Four diagnostic methods were used to evaluate lymphedema outcomes: (i) interlimb volume difference through water displacement, (ii) interlimb size difference through sum of arm circumferences, (iii) interlimb impedance ratio using bioimpedance spectroscopy, and (iv) a validated self-report survey. Of the 295 women who participated in the PAL trial, between 22 and 52{\%} were considered to have lymphedema at baseline according to the four diagnostic criteria used. No between-group differences were noted in the proportion of women who had a change in interlimb volume, interlimb size, interlimb ratio, or survey score of ≥5, ≥5, ≥10{\%}, and 1 unit, respectively (cumulative incidence ratio at study end for each measure ranged between 0.6 and 0.8, with confidence intervals spanning 1.0). The variation in proportions of women within the PAL trial considered to have lymphoedema at baseline highlights the potential impact of the diagnostic criteria on population surveillance regarding prevalence of this common morbidity of treatment. Importantly though, progressive weight lifting was shown to be safe for women following breast cancer, even for those at risk or with lymphedema, irrespective of the diagnostic criteria used.",
author = "Hayes, {Sandra C.} and Speck, {Rebecca M.} and Elizabeth Reimet and Azadeh Stark and Schmitz, {Kathryn H.}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10549-011-1547-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "227--234",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "0167-6806",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

Does the effect of weight lifting on lymphedema following breast cancer differ by diagnostic method : Results from a randomized controlled trial. / Hayes, Sandra C.; Speck, Rebecca M.; Reimet, Elizabeth; Stark, Azadeh; Schmitz, Kathryn H.

In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 130, No. 1, 01.11.2011, p. 227-234.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does the effect of weight lifting on lymphedema following breast cancer differ by diagnostic method

T2 - Results from a randomized controlled trial

AU - Hayes, Sandra C.

AU - Speck, Rebecca M.

AU - Reimet, Elizabeth

AU - Stark, Azadeh

AU - Schmitz, Kathryn H.

PY - 2011/11/1

Y1 - 2011/11/1

N2 - The lymphedema diagnostic method used in descriptive or intervention studies may influence results found. The purposes of this work were to compare baseline lymphedema prevalence in the physical activity and lymphedema (PAL) trial cohort and to subsequently compare the effect of the weight-lifting intervention on lymphedema, according to four standard diagnostic methods. The PAL trial was a randomized controlled intervention study, involving 295 women who had previously been treated for breast cancer, and evaluated the effect of 12 months of weight lifting on lymphedema status. Four diagnostic methods were used to evaluate lymphedema outcomes: (i) interlimb volume difference through water displacement, (ii) interlimb size difference through sum of arm circumferences, (iii) interlimb impedance ratio using bioimpedance spectroscopy, and (iv) a validated self-report survey. Of the 295 women who participated in the PAL trial, between 22 and 52% were considered to have lymphedema at baseline according to the four diagnostic criteria used. No between-group differences were noted in the proportion of women who had a change in interlimb volume, interlimb size, interlimb ratio, or survey score of ≥5, ≥5, ≥10%, and 1 unit, respectively (cumulative incidence ratio at study end for each measure ranged between 0.6 and 0.8, with confidence intervals spanning 1.0). The variation in proportions of women within the PAL trial considered to have lymphoedema at baseline highlights the potential impact of the diagnostic criteria on population surveillance regarding prevalence of this common morbidity of treatment. Importantly though, progressive weight lifting was shown to be safe for women following breast cancer, even for those at risk or with lymphedema, irrespective of the diagnostic criteria used.

AB - The lymphedema diagnostic method used in descriptive or intervention studies may influence results found. The purposes of this work were to compare baseline lymphedema prevalence in the physical activity and lymphedema (PAL) trial cohort and to subsequently compare the effect of the weight-lifting intervention on lymphedema, according to four standard diagnostic methods. The PAL trial was a randomized controlled intervention study, involving 295 women who had previously been treated for breast cancer, and evaluated the effect of 12 months of weight lifting on lymphedema status. Four diagnostic methods were used to evaluate lymphedema outcomes: (i) interlimb volume difference through water displacement, (ii) interlimb size difference through sum of arm circumferences, (iii) interlimb impedance ratio using bioimpedance spectroscopy, and (iv) a validated self-report survey. Of the 295 women who participated in the PAL trial, between 22 and 52% were considered to have lymphedema at baseline according to the four diagnostic criteria used. No between-group differences were noted in the proportion of women who had a change in interlimb volume, interlimb size, interlimb ratio, or survey score of ≥5, ≥5, ≥10%, and 1 unit, respectively (cumulative incidence ratio at study end for each measure ranged between 0.6 and 0.8, with confidence intervals spanning 1.0). The variation in proportions of women within the PAL trial considered to have lymphoedema at baseline highlights the potential impact of the diagnostic criteria on population surveillance regarding prevalence of this common morbidity of treatment. Importantly though, progressive weight lifting was shown to be safe for women following breast cancer, even for those at risk or with lymphedema, irrespective of the diagnostic criteria used.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82455188103&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82455188103&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10549-011-1547-6

DO - 10.1007/s10549-011-1547-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 21562712

AN - SCOPUS:82455188103

VL - 130

SP - 227

EP - 234

JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 0167-6806

IS - 1

ER -