A Randomized Clinical Trial of Bioimpedance Spectroscopy or Tape Measure Triggered Compression Intervention in Chronic Breast Cancer Lymphedema Prevention

Introduction

As breast cancer survivorship rises, the impact of long-term treatment complications have taken on greater significance.¹ One such complication is breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL).^2–4 Chronic BCRL(C-BCRL) can lead to pain, infections, limited arm function, reduced quality of life, and costly and resource intensive therapies, such as complex decongestive physiotherapy (CDP).^5,6 Rates of C-BCRL range from 5% with breast conserving surgery with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNLB) alone to greater than 50% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), regional nodal irradiation (RNI), and/or taxane-based chemotherapy.⁵

Identifying patients in the early stage of BCRL can be challenging. Currently, a diagnosis of C-BCRL is usually made after visible/clinically apparent changes or symptoms occur.^7–9 Prior to these changes, subclinical disease occurs as indicated by an increase in extracellular fluid.¹⁰ Accurately identifying subclinical disease before it is visible facilitates early intervention and possibly C-BCRL prevention.¹⁰ Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) allows for early identification of subclinical extracellular fluid change.^11,12 Early diagnosis of subclinical BCRL (S-BCRL) coupled with short-course compression therapy has been shown to improve outcomes, suggesting that such early detection may prevent the need for CDP.^13–17 The primary aim of this study was to determine if subclinical detection of increasing extracellular fluid via BIS and early intervention with four weeks of a compression sleeve and gauntlet resulted in reduced rates of progression to C-BCRL, defined as ≥ 10% arm volume change from baseline requiring CDP, as compared to the same intervention when initiated by increasing arm volume ascertained using circumferential tape measurement (TM).

Materials and Methods

Results

Overall, 1,239 women were recruited between June 24, 2014 and September 11, 2018 with 1,200 enrolled; post-operatively, 963 patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomized (BIS n=482: TM n=481) (see Consort Diagram). The final analysis was performed upon completion of the study (December 31, 2020) on 879 patients (BIS n=442; TM n=437) as 39 (4.2%) patients progressed either at their initial post-randomization visit or between other study visits (BIS n=19; TM n=20, p=.85) and 45 had no valid post-baseline assessments (BIS n=21; TM n=24, p=.64). The sample had a median age of 58.5 years with most being non-Hispanic nor Latina (96.4%) (Table 1). With the exception of patients assigned to TM having a slightly higher rate of smoking (37% vs. 30%, p = 0.051), the groups were well balanced for demographic and pathologic features. Clinical characteristics also were well-balanced, with the group of BIS patients having a slightly higher prevalence of Stage I disease than TM (61% vs. 52%). In terms of treatment, the BIS group was comprised of a slightly higher proportion of patients who had SLNB than the TM group (84% vs. 78%, p = 0.011 Table 2). No other statistical or meaningful differences in number of nodes removed, utilization of RNI or taxane-based chemotherapy were observed between groups. Furthermore, within the ultimate sample (those who triggered an intervention) for testing our primary outcome (progression), no significant or meaningful differences between the rates of ALND (30.3% vs. 27.6%, p = 0.127) or cancer stage at presentation were observed (p = 0.475, Table 3).

Median follow-up was 32.9 months (IQR = 22, 35); with a trend for longer follow-up in the BIS arm than TM (33.1 months; IQR=25, 35 vs. 32.7 months; IQR=20, 35, p = 0.054). A lower proportion of BIS patients triggered an intervention (BIS 20.1%, n=89 of 442; 95% CI, 16.3%, 24.0% vs. TM 27.5%, n=120 of 437; 95% CI, 22.9%, 31.7%; p = 0.011) and median months from randomization to intervention triggering was longer in the BIS group than the TM group (9.7 months; 95% CI, 8.2-12.6 vs. 3.9 months; 95% CI, 2.8-4.5, p = 0.001, Table 4). Of the 209 patients, BIS (n=89) and TM (n=120) who triggered an intervention, 30 (14.4%) progressed after intervention. Of those patients, no difference between the groups was observed in intervention completion rates (BIS 92.1%, n=7 vs. TM 95.0%, n=6; p = 0.396).

Following intervention, patients in the BIS group were less likely to progress to CDP than those in the TM group (7.9%, n=7 of 89 vs. 19.2%, n=23 of 120; absolute reduction 11.3%; 95% CI, 2.3%-20.3%; OR=0.36, 95% CI=0.11–0.77, p = 0.016). Relative rates of progression were reduced by approximately 59% in the BIS arm (RR=0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-0.81). Median follow-up months between trigger and progression for the TM or BIS groups were not statistically significantly different (BIS: 4.9 months; 95% CI, 0.7-13.9 vs. TM: 10.7 months; 95% CI, 4.9 to 17.0, p = 0.100, Table 4). An analysis of progression that included only the patients who completed the intervention resulted in similar findings (BIS 8.5%, n=7 of 82 vs. TM: 20.2%, n=23 of 114, absolute reduction 11.7%; 95% CI, 2.1%-21.3%, p = 0.018). While the randomized groups who triggered were well-balanced in terms of known risk factors for progression to CDP with no statistically significant differences between them, they certainly were not “case/control matched” or “equivalent’. To account for the possibility that one of those factors rather than the triggering approach accounted for the difference in progression rates, risk-adjusted analyses were conducted. As shown in Table 5, while some of those increased the likelihood of progression to CDP (cancer stage, p = 0.002; ALND, p < 0.001; any positive nodes removed, p = 0.007; chemotherapy, p = 0.005; a combination of high-risk treatments, p = 0.031), after adjusting for those factors the estimates of the effects of using BIS as the BCRL detection method remained essentially equivalent for all adjustments (bootstrapped ORs of 0.35 to 0.37, with p values remaining between 0.01 and 0.03 for effect of BIS, Table 5).

Adverse event information was available for the 963 randomized patents. The overall number of study-related adverse events was <1% (n=3). Two reports were of Grade 1 skin itching/tingling/redness during the compression intervention. One patient reported perceived swelling of upper arm during the intervention, but physical examination and measurement did not confirm physiological swelling. There were no study related serious adverse events.

Discussion

The results from this large, multi-center, RCT trial add to the prior reported data on this topic supporting that use of BIS for prospective BCRL screening coupled with early intervention of a short four-week well-fitted compression sleeve and gauntlet reduces progression to C-BCRL as compared to TM. ^23,24 Specifically, use of BIS as part of prospective BCRL surveillance, coupled with early compression sleeve and gauntlet intervention, significantly reduced C-BCRL (progression to CDP), (7.9% vs 19.2%, P=.016) as compared to TM. Analyses including patients who did not complete intervention after triggering, as well as just those who completed intervention both supported this significance. This represents a clinically significant outcome, offering clinicians the ability to use this approach to reduce a patient’s risk of developing C-BCRL and potentially affords payers the option of a low-cost, conservative compression sleeve intervention instead of expensive treatment such as physical therapy, bypass, and CDP.

This RCT provides level I evidence as compared to previous studies with limited numbers of patients that did not use S-BCRL definitions.^12,25 This is supported by a meta-analysis of more than 67,000 women and 50 studies that found that use of BIS reduced annualized and cumulative incidence of C-BCRL as compared to TM or background studies, though not controlling for intervention protocols as the current study did.²⁶ These consistent significant findings are likely related to the ability of BIS to detect an increase in extracellular fluid, as opposed to TM’s ability to only detect an increase in whole arm volume. Thus, BIS serves as a better screening method to determine who will best benefit from a prevention intervention and achieve reversal of the S-BCRL process that can lead to C-BCRL.^23,24 BIS is more specific for lymphedema detection than TM as it had fewer triggers and longer times to intervention trigger. The lower rates of C-BCRL in the BIS group would therefore be secondary to more accurate detection and identification of patients with S-BCRL, rather than earlier intervention per se as the time to trigger is significantly longer.

A critically important issue regarding the robustness of our findings is that not only did we conduct a rigorous intent-to-treat analysis of the randomized groups, we also risk-adjusted for those factors known to increase the likelihood of progression. Randomization insured patients had equal opportunity for both types of assessment however “equivalence” of any other factor is not assured. Both groups were well-balanced in terms of high-risk factors for progression (no statistically significant differences). Our risk-adjustment analysis confirmed that most of those factors (cancer stage, total number of nodes removed, any positive nodes removed, chemotherapy, and a combination of high-risk treatments) did statistically significantly increase the likelihood of progression. The parameter estimates for the reduction in likelihood of progression with BIS surveillance remained stable (ORs of 0.35-0.37, P=0.01-0.03, Table 5), confirming the balanced nature of the groups. Thus, the statistically and clinically significant positive outcome experienced by patients in the BIS group was related to the screening method and its detection of changes in extracellular fluid.

BIS is clearly a valuable tool for patient management. Our findings are consistent with previous prospective studies which found that use of BIS as part of prospective surveillance resulted in a persistent C-BCRL rate of only 6%.²⁶ The final results of the study, confirm the significantly lower rates of trigger with BIS as compared to TM (20.7% vs 27.5%, P=.011) as seen at the interim analysis. ^{28, 29, 30} Critical knowledge to inform the optimal method of prospective surveillance was also generated in this study. Intensive training, a standardized measurement protocol, and annual fidelity oversight for both measurements were undertaken. While the BIS protocol can be easily replicated in clinical settings, the rigor of the TM protocol for this study exceeded what is practical in most clinics. Thus, BIS may offer even more benefit across clinical settings than what was demonstrated in this study.

The trial was amended during enrollment to reflect a lower L-Dex trigger.²¹ Despite this change, TM still generated more intervention triggers. Though intra and inter-observer variability with TM may have contributed to the greater number of triggers in the TM group; the required training and annual fidelity visits were intended to limit this risk as much as possible.

With respect to time to trigger, a difference remained between the two techniques though the difference was smaller than in the interim analysis. This raises questions as to whether TM is capturing post-surgical/radiation inflammatory soft tissue changes that BIS does not capture, rather than lymphedema. If true, then patient’s may be diagnosed with lymphedema, when they do not have it and experience unnecessary psychological distress.

Although this study has many strengths, some limitations do exist. While high-risk features and cancer treatment techniques were well balanced between arms and the statistical analyses controlled for those known and/or potential confounding effects, there may exist effects of those features and/or treatments that could not be accounted for in this trial. Furthermore, this RCT compared BIS to TM and as such, extrapolation to other BCRL diagnostics is not possible. Additionally, there was not a no intervention control arm; any such an arm would eliminate equipoise in the study, was unlikely to be approved by IRBs given the data available regarding C-BCRL prevention, and there was potential for negative impact upon recruitment and retention, given the level of subject burden for a 3-year study commitment should one group not be offered the intervention. The ALND rate for the study was 17%; this is consistent with modern practice as many patients who previously received ALND will now receive RNI instead.³⁰ However, strengths of this study include the design, absence of clinically relevant differences in sociodemographic characteristics between groups prior to treatment, and length of follow-up.

Conclusion

Prospective surveillance conducted over 3-years post operatively that identified and treated S-BCRL improved patient outcomes. Given the large scale, long-term follow-up and randomized nature of the trial, these statistically significant results demonstrate that BIS screening should be a standard approach for prospective BCRL surveillance. BIS as compared to TM, provides a more precise identification of patients likely to benefit from an early compression intervention.

Authors Contributions

Dietrich, Ridner, and Shah: Conceptualization and writing original draft:

All authors contributed equally: Methodology, resources, writing-review-editing.

Dietrich and Ridner: Funding Acquisition, authors verifying underlying data, data curation, formal analysis.

Dietrich: Visualization.

Dietrich, Ridner, and Shah: Validation.

Dietrich: Software.

Abramson, Boyages, Elder, French, Hughes, Hsu, Koelmeyer, Moore, Ngui and Ridner:

Investigation and project administration.

Conflicts

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: SR is the primary investigator and received institutional payment for research from ImpediMed, institutional donation of compression garments from medi and funding from NIH grants to Vanderbilt University, LK and AM received institutional payment for research from ImpediMed and institutional donation of compression garments from medi, JB is an ImpediMed shareholder, LK has been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for ImpediMed, SR has been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for Tactile Medical (including travel costs) and Lymphedema Seminars, CS has been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for TME, CS does consultancy for ImpediMed, PreludeDX, Evicore; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Funding

The research study was funded by ImpediMed, medi, and by the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NCATS UL1 TR000445). This closed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02167659.