Skip to content

Treatment of Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema With a Negative Pressure Device

Treatment of Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema With a Negative Pressure Device: A Feasibility Study

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03252145
Enrollment
28
Registered
2017-08-17
Start date
2017-10-31
Completion date
2020-01-31
Last updated
2021-01-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Lymphedema of Upper Limb, Lymphedema, Secondary

Brief summary

This study will be a 4 to 6 week randomized, controlled, assessor blinded, trial comparing a negative pressure massage device (intervention group), to the standard manual lymph drainage massage (control group), in breast cancer patients with chronic upper extremity lymphedema.

Detailed description

Lymphedema (LE) is a protein-rich interstitial swelling caused by reduced lymph transport secondary to lymphatic system damage from cancer treatments. 1 in 5 women will develop LE following breast cancer treatment. These women have greater restrictions in activity and poorer quality of life (QOL) and are more prone to cellulitis than women without LE. LE is incurable and progressive. Persistent lymph stasis creates a condition of chronic inflammation that contributes to fibrosis and fatty deposition in the subcutis of the affected limb. The fibro-adipose changes associated with chronic LE make it less responsive to treatments that primarily target limb volume. Treatments are needed that can improve these skin and subcutaneous tissues changes, as well as reduce limb volume. This 4 to 6 week randomized controlled pilot feasibility study will enroll 80 women with chronic arm LE, and will evaluate a novel negative pressure massage device that mobilizes skin and subcutaneous tissue. This negative pressure treatment provides vertical (lifting) and horizontal stretching of the skin and underlying fascial structures, which increases the subcutaneous space for lymphatic circulation, improves lymph flow, and has the potential to decrease fibrosis. This treatment will be compared to the standard of care massage: manual lymphatic drainage. Women will be randomly assigned to either the negative pressure massage device (intervention group), to the standard manual lymph drainage massage (control group) Objectives: To evaluate recruitment and retention rates; to determine rates of adverse events; and to determine effect sizes for limb volume, tissue induration; and patient reported outcomes of arm function, QOL, and body image in response to treatment

Interventions

The PhysioTouch is a hand-held device that administers negative pressure under the treatment head, and gently pulls the underlying skin and subcutaneous tissue into the suction cup. This suction produces a stretch to the skin and in the subcutaneous tissue space. This action is thought to facilitate lymphatic flow from the interstitium into the lymphatic vessels, and mobilizes the superficial fascia.

OTHERManual Lymph Drainage (MLD)

MLD is a practitioner-applied manual massage technique designed to decrease limb volume in patients with lymphedema by enhancing movement of lymph fluid, resulting in reductions in interstitial fluid.

Sponsors

Foundation for Physical Therapy, Inc.
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
University of California, San Francisco
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

To be included women must be: Be over 18 years of age; Have had cancer treatment that included a surgical procedure, radiation therapy (RT), and/or chemotherapy (CTX); Have completed active cancer treatment at least 1 year prior to study enrollment; Have been diagnosed with lymphedema (LE) at least one year prior to study enrollment; Have arm lymphedema on one side only; Have confirmed LE based on bioimpedance measurements with an L-Dex® score of \>7.1 (note - this is very mild lymphedema); Have stable arm LE. LE will be considered stable if during the 3 months prior to study enrollment there was no arm infection requiring antibiotics, no change in ability to perform activities of daily living related to LE, and no subjective report of significant persistent changes in limb volume; Be mentally and physically able to participate in the study; Be able to attend the sessions at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus campus; Read and understand English; Be able to understand a written informed consent document and the willingness to sign it

Exclusion criteria

Women cannot have: * Bilateral upper extremity LE; * Current infection or lymphangitis involving the affected arm; * Current recurrence of their breast cancer (BC) (local or distant) * Pre-existing LE prior to their BC diagnosis; * A condition that precludes measurement of LE using Bioimpedance Spectroscopy (BIS), including pregnancy; * Current venous thrombosis in either upper extremity or be on current anticoagulant therapy; * Extremity edema due to heart failure

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Recruitment RatesAt 4 weeksThe recruitment rate is defined as the number of women who were screened and then enrolled on the study divided by the the total number of women screened overall.
Percentage of Participants Who Completed All Study VisitsAt 4 weeksRetention rates for both arms of this study were evaluated. The numbers of women who completed the study will be recorded. Reasons for drop out will be ascertained.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Limb VolumeAt BaselineArm circumferential measurements of both limbs and hands were taken twice, using a spring-loaded tape measure. The hand was measured in two locations. Upper extremity measurements were taken at 10 centimeter (cm) intervals from the ulnar styloid of the wrist up to a total distance of 40 cm. Circumferences were measured using the procedures outlined by Cornish et al. Limb volume was calculated using the formula for volume of a truncated cone and reported in millilitre (ml)
Mean Lymphedema Index (L-DEX®) Ratio ScoresAt BaselineBioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) measurements were taken using a single channel BIS, tetrapolar device (LDex device, ImpediMed, San Diego, CA) to evaluate upper limb bioelectrical impedance. Impedance ratios (unaffected/affected limb) are calculated and converted to L-Dex ratio score. With development of lymphedema, impedance of extremity decreases and L-Dex ratio therefore increases. An L-Dex ratio score of 10 is equivalent to impedance ratio of 1.139 (which is = to 3 standard deviations (SD) from mean normative BIS data) for at-risk dominant arms & 1.066 for at-risk non-dominant arms, respectively. Each 1 standard unit in L-Dex is equivalent to impedance ratio of 0.03. Using this arbitrary scale relevant to normative standards, a patient is determined to have arm lymphedema if L-Dex ratio score exceeds 7.1, which is 2 SD above mean normative data for BIS impedance ratios. Higher L-Dex ratio score means higher impedance ratio between limbs, which means more volume in affected limb.
Mean L-DEX® ScoresAt 4 weeksBioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) measurements were taken using a single channel BIS, tetrapolar device (LDex device, ImpediMed, San Diego, CA) to evaluate upper limb bioelectrical impedance. Impedance ratios (unaffected/affected limb) are calculated and converted to L-Dex ratio score. With development of lymphedema, impedance of extremity decreases and L-Dex ratio therefore increases. An L-Dex ratio score of 10 is equivalent to impedance ratio of 1.139 (which is = to 3 standard deviations (SD) from mean normative BIS data) for at-risk dominant arms & 1.066 for at-risk non-dominant arms, respectively. Each 1 standard unit in L-Dex is equivalent to impedance ratio of 0.03. Using this arbitrary scale relevant to normative standards, a patient is determined to have arm lymphedema if L-Dex ratio score exceeds 7.1, which is 2 SD above mean normative data for BIS impedance ratios. Higher L-Dex ratio score means higher impedance ratio between limbs, which means more volume in affected limb.
Mean Skin Induration ScoreAt BaselineThe SkinFibroMeter (Delfin Technologies, Finland) was used to measure tissue induration. The SkinFibroMeter consists of a 1 mm long indenter and a force sensor. The device is gently pressed against the skin. The indenter imposes a constant deformation when the reference plate is in full contact with the skin. The skin and the underlying superficial subcutis resist the deformation. Measurements will be taken bilaterally at 5 locations: the first dorsal web space; the medial forearm halfway between the ulnar styloid and medial epicondyle; the lateral forearm halfway between the radial styloid and the lateral epicondyle; the medial arm 3 inches proximal to the medial epicondyle; and the lateral arm 3 inches proximal to the lateral epicondyle. Five recordings were taken at each location and a mean score was calculated.The induration value in Newtons (N) is recorded.
Mean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionAt BaselineActive shoulder flexion and abduction range of motion (ROM) was assessed, with patients supine, using a goniometer and standardized procedures reported by Norkin and White. Bilateral ROM was assessed. Two measurements will be taken for each motion and a mean obtained, for each, bilaterally. Findings are recorded in degrees.
Mean Grip ScoreAt BaselineGrip strength was assessed using a Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer (Patterson Medical, Bolingbrook, IL). Patients will be tested in sitting with the feet flat on the floor, the arm at the side with the elbow flexed to 90 degrees. The patient was instructed to maximally squeeze the handle and hold for a count of 3. The peak-hold needle will automatically record the highest force exerted. Two trials for each extremity will be done and a mean grip score (in kilogram of force) calculated. A higher score indicates a greater grip strength.
Mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ScoreAt BaselineParticipants rated their functional status using the single item KPS scale with a range from 0 (dead) to 100 (I feel normal; I have no complaints or symptoms), in increments of 10 (0,10,20, 30 , 40...). The lower the Karnofsky score, the worse the impairment.
Mean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) ScoresAt BaselineThe SCQ consists of 13 common medical conditions that are simplified into language that could be understood without any prior medical knowledge. Patients were asked to indicate if they had the condition using a yes/no format. If they indicate that they had a condition, they are asked if they received treatment for it (yes/no; proxy for disease severity) and did it limit their activities (yes/no; indication of functional limitations). • For each condition, a patient can receive a maximum of 3 points. Because there are 13 defined medical conditions and 2 optional conditions, the maximum achievable total score is 45 points as all items were available for use.
Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) ScoresAt BaselineThe NQ was originally developed and validated as a phone interview questionnaire to describe the signs and symptoms of breast cancer-related lymphoedema. Participants report subjective differences in the size of the hands, lower arms, and/or upper arms between their right and left sides. For each site difference, the reported score can range from 1 (very slight difference) to 3 (very noticeable difference). The total score can range from 1 (very slight difference at 1 site) to 9 (very noticeable difference at all 3 sites). Higher scores indicate a greater noticeable difference between the two arms
Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) ScoresAt BaselineThe DASH is a 30-item self-report questionnaire measuring upper limb symptoms and ability to perform common functional activities in people with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb. The disability/symptom questions are scored 1 thru 5, with 1=being no difficulty and 5=being unable to perform. At least 27 of the 30 items must be completed for a scaled score to be calculated. The assigned values for all completed responses are simply summed and averaged, producing a raw score between 1 and 5. This value is then transformed to a score out of 100 to create a DASH disability/symptom score = \[(sum of (n) responses) - 1\] x 25, where n is equal to the number of completed responses. Each scaled score cut point is scored as 0 (no disability), 25 (mild disability), 50 (moderate), 75 (severe) and 100 (unable to perform activities). Higher scores indicate greater limitation.
Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)At BaselineThe PROMIS for the Upper Extremity is reliable and addresses disability with physical activities that involve upper limb activities. The instrument items include 5 response options, from 1 not at all to 5 very much. Total scores range from 0 to 100. PROMIS UE scores are scored using a T-score metric, with higher scores indicate higher levels of physical functioning of the upper extremity.
Mean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)At BaselineThe PROMIS 29 v2.0 profile assesses pain intensity using a response scale for each item ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain) on seven health domains (physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance), with four items per domain and one question which addresses pain intensity item. PROMIS-29 domains are scored using a T-score metric, with higher scores indicate higher levels of functioning.
Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) ScoresAt BaselineThe FACT-B is a self-report instrument that measures multidimensional quality of life (QOL) in patients with breast cancer. The FACT-B consists of 37 questions that address physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being, with specific questions relevant to women with breast cancer. Each item has a score range of 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much), with a total score ranging from 0-148 The higher the score, the better the QOL reported by the participant.
Mean Body Image Scale (BIS) ScoreAt baselineThe 10-item Body Image Scale was developed by Hopwood et al. in 2001 to measure affective, behavioral, and cognitive body image symptoms. Patients can indicate body image symptoms on a 4-point scale (0 not at all to 3 very much). The total score ranges from 0 to 30 and can be calculated by summing up the 10 items. A higher score means a higher level of body image disturbance
Mean Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) ScoresAt 4 weeksSatisfaction with treatment will be evaluated at the 4-week assessment using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) (FACIT-TSG- Version 4). The FACIT-TSG is a copyrighted 8-item questionnaire, with each item score ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Total scores range from 0 to 32 with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with treatment.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were recruited from a University of California, San Francisco 5-year cross-sectional study (CA187160). In addition, flyers were made available to participants at lymphedema and breast cancer conferences and patient symposia. Community collaborators (breast surgeons, lymphedema specialists, support group leaders) were also sent informational and recruitment materials related to the study.

Pre-assignment details

Of the 130 who expressed interest in the study, only 28 met all inclusion criteria.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Manual Lymph Drainage
Manual lymph drainage (MLD) treatment 3 times a week for 4 weeks to the lymphedematous upper limb Manual Lymph Drainage (MLD): MLD is a practitioner-applied manual massage technique designed to decrease limb volume in patients with lymphedema by enhancing movement of lymph fluid, resulting in reductions in interstitial fluid.
13
Negative Pressure
PhysioTouch (negative pressure massage) treatment 3 times a week for 4 weeks to the lymphedematous upper limb PhysioTouch: The PhysioTouch is a hand-held device that administers negative pressure under the treatment head, and gently pulls the underlying skin and subcutaneous tissue into the suction cup. This suction produces a stretch to the skin and in the subcutaneous tissue space. This action is thought to facilitate lymphatic flow from the interstitium into the lymphatic vessels, and mobilizes the superficial fascia.
15
Total28

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyComplicating Disease12
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject10

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicNegative PressureManual Lymph DrainageTotal
Age, Customized
30-39 years old
1 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Age, Customized
40-49 years old
1 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Age, Customized
50-59 years old
4 Participants4 Participants8 Participants
Age, Customized
60-69 years old
3 Participants5 Participants8 Participants
Age, Customized
70-79 years old
5 Participants2 Participants7 Participants
Age, Customized
80-89 years old
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
15 Participants12 Participants27 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
1 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
3 Participants1 Participants4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
11 Participants10 Participants21 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
15 participants13 participants28 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
15 Participants13 Participants28 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 130 / 15
other
Total, other adverse events
1 / 134 / 15
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 130 / 15

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Participants Who Completed All Study Visits

Retention rates for both arms of this study were evaluated. The numbers of women who completed the study will be recorded. Reasons for drop out will be ascertained.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Manual Lymph DrainagePercentage of Participants Who Completed All Study Visits84.6 percentage of participants
Negative PressurePercentage of Participants Who Completed All Study Visits86.7 percentage of participants
Primary

Recruitment Rates

The recruitment rate is defined as the number of women who were screened and then enrolled on the study divided by the the total number of women screened overall.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Manual Lymph DrainageRecruitment Rates32.5 rate of recruitment
Negative PressureRecruitment Rates37.5 rate of recruitment
Secondary

Mean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score

The 10-item Body Image Scale was developed by Hopwood et al. in 2001 to measure affective, behavioral, and cognitive body image symptoms. Patients can indicate body image symptoms on a 4-point scale (0 not at all to 3 very much). The total score ranges from 0 to 30 and can be calculated by summing up the 10 items. A higher score means a higher level of body image disturbance

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at week 4

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score7.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.4
Negative PressureMean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score9.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.5
p-value: 0.511t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score

The 10-item Body Image Scale was developed by Hopwood et al. in 2001 to measure affective, behavioral, and cognitive body image symptoms. Patients can indicate body image symptoms on a 4-point scale (0 not at all to 3 very much). The total score ranges from 0 to 30 and can be calculated by summing up the 10 items. A higher score means a higher level of body image disturbance

Time frame: At baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the assessment at baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score8.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.6
Negative PressureMean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score9.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.4
p-value: 0.837t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Degrees of Shoulder Range of Motion

Active shoulder flexion and abduction range of motion (ROM) was assessed, with patients supine, using a goniometer and standardized procedures reported by Norkin and White. Bilateral ROM was assessed. Two measurements will be taken for each motion and a mean obtained, for each, bilaterally. Findings are recorded in degrees.

Time frame: At Baseline

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionAffected arm167.5 degreesStandard Deviation 5
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionUnaffected arm168.5 degreesStandard Deviation 6.9
Negative PressureMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionAffected arm157.1 degreesStandard Deviation 34
Negative PressureMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionUnaffected arm163.7 degreesStandard Deviation 12.7
Comparison: Affected Arm Onlyp-value: 0.264t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Unaffected armp-value: 0.224t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Degrees of Shoulder Range of Motion

Active shoulder flexion and abduction range of motion (ROM) was assessed, with patients supine, using a goniometer and standardized procedures reported by Norkin and White. Bilateral ROM was assessed. Two measurements will be taken for each motion and a mean obtained, for each, bilaterally. Findings are recorded in degrees.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionAffected arm170.5 degreesStandard Deviation 6
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionUnaffected arm169.3 degreesStandard Deviation 7.5
Negative PressureMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionAffected arm165.5 degreesStandard Deviation 9.5
Negative PressureMean Degrees of Shoulder Range of MotionUnaffected arm164.6 degreesStandard Deviation 11.6
Comparison: Affected armp-value: 0.125t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Unaffected armp-value: 0.241t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores

The DASH is a 30-item self-report questionnaire measuring upper limb symptoms and ability to perform common functional activities in people with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb. The disability/symptom questions are scored 1 thru 5, with 1=being no difficulty and 5=being unable to perform. At least 27 of the 30 items must be completed for a scaled score to be calculated. The assigned values for all completed responses are simply summed and averaged, producing a raw score between 1 and 5. This value is then transformed to a score out of 100 to create a DASH disability/symptom score = \[(sum of (n) responses) - 1\] x 25, where n is equal to the number of completed responses. Each scaled score cut point is scored as 0 (no disability), 25 (mild disability), 50 (moderate), 75 (severe) and 100 (unable to perform activities). Higher scores indicate greater limitation.

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores12.40 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.83
Negative PressureMean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores21.45 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.44
p-value: 0.096t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores

The DASH is a 30-item self-report questionnaire measuring upper limb symptoms and ability to perform common functional activities in people with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb. The disability/symptom questions are scored 1 thru 5, with 1=being no difficulty and 5=being unable to perform. At least 27 of the 30 items must be completed for a scaled score to be calculated. The assigned values for all completed responses are simply summed and averaged, producing a raw score between 1 and 5. This value is then transformed to a score out of 100 to create a DASH disability/symptom score = \[(sum of (n) responses) - 1\] x 25, where n is equal to the number of completed responses. Each scaled score cut point is scored as 0 (no disability), 25 (mild disability), 50 (moderate), 75 (severe) and 100 (unable to perform activities). Higher scores indicate greater limitation.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores11.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.03
Negative PressureMean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores17.62 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.22
p-value: 0.206t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores

The FACT-B is a self-report instrument that measures multidimensional quality of life (QOL) in patients with breast cancer. The FACT-B consists of 37 questions that address physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being, with specific questions relevant to women with breast cancer. Each item has a score range of 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much), with a total score ranging from 0-148 The higher the score, the better the QOL reported by the participant.

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores114.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.8
Negative PressureMean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores113.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.1
p-value: 0.938t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores

The FACT-B is a self-report instrument that measures multidimensional quality of life (QOL) in patients with breast cancer. The FACT-B consists of 37 questions that address physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being, with specific questions relevant to women with breast cancer. Each item has a score range of 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much), with a total score ranging from 0-148 The higher the score, the better the QOL reported by the participant.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at week 4

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores118.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.4
Negative PressureMean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores114.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.8
p-value: 0.603t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) Scores

Satisfaction with treatment will be evaluated at the 4-week assessment using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) (FACIT-TSG- Version 4). The FACIT-TSG is a copyrighted 8-item questionnaire, with each item score ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Total scores range from 0 to 32 with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with treatment.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) Scores24.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.9
Negative PressureMean Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) Scores27.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.2
p-value: 0.326t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Grip Score

Grip strength was assessed using a Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer (Patterson Medical, Bolingbrook, IL). Patients will be tested in sitting with the feet flat on the floor, the arm at the side with the elbow flexed to 90 degrees. The patient was instructed to maximally squeeze the handle and hold for a count of 3. The peak-hold needle will automatically record the highest force exerted. Two trials for each extremity will be done and a mean grip score (in kilogram of force) calculated. A higher score indicates a greater grip strength.

Time frame: At Baseline

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Grip ScoreAffected Arm24.0 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 4.7
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Grip ScoreUnaffected Arm25.7 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 6.8
Negative PressureMean Grip ScoreAffected Arm21.5 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 6.4
Negative PressureMean Grip ScoreUnaffected Arm24.5 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 4.3
Comparison: Affected Armp-value: 0.261t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Unaffected Armp-value: 0.597t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Grip Score

Grip strength was assessed using a Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer (Patterson Medical, Bolingbrook, IL). Patients will be tested in sitting with the feet flat on the floor, the arm at the side with the elbow flexed to 90 degrees. The patient was instructed to maximally squeeze the handle and hold for a count of 3. The peak-hold needle will automatically record the highest force exerted. Two trials for each extremity will be done and a mean grip score (in kilograms of force) calculated. A higher score indicates a greater grip strength.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Grip ScoreAffected arm26.4 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 6.6
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Grip ScoreUnaffected arm25.5 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 6.1
Negative PressureMean Grip ScoreAffected arm25.2 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 4.1
Negative PressureMean Grip ScoreUnaffected arm22.6 kilograms of forceStandard Deviation 5.5
Comparison: Affected armp-value: 0.596t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Unaffected armp-value: 0.219t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score

Participants rated their functional status using the single item KPS scale with a range from 0 (dead) to 100 (I feel normal; I have no complaints or symptoms), in increments of 10 (0,10,20, 30 , 40...). The lower the Karnofsky score, the worse the impairment.

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score89.12 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.79
Negative PressureMean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score88.18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.74
p-value: 0.842t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score

Participants rated their functional status using the single item KPS scale with a range from 0 (dead) to 100 (I feel normal; I have no complaints or symptoms), in increments of 10 (0,10,20, 30 , 40...). The lower the Karnofsky score, the worse the impairment.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score91.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.04
Negative PressureMean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score90.91 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.44
p-value: 0.772t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean L-DEX® Scores

Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) measurements were taken using a single channel BIS, tetrapolar device (LDex device, ImpediMed, San Diego, CA) to evaluate upper limb bioelectrical impedance. Impedance ratios (unaffected/affected limb) are calculated and converted to L-Dex ratio score. With development of lymphedema, impedance of extremity decreases and L-Dex ratio therefore increases. An L-Dex ratio score of 10 is equivalent to impedance ratio of 1.139 (which is = to 3 standard deviations (SD) from mean normative BIS data) for at-risk dominant arms & 1.066 for at-risk non-dominant arms, respectively. Each 1 standard unit in L-Dex is equivalent to impedance ratio of 0.03. Using this arbitrary scale relevant to normative standards, a patient is determined to have arm lymphedema if L-Dex ratio score exceeds 7.1, which is 2 SD above mean normative data for BIS impedance ratios. Higher L-Dex ratio score means higher impedance ratio between limbs, which means more volume in affected limb.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: The range of L-DEX ratio scores on our study at 4 weeks were -2.85 - 77.50.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean L-DEX® Scores26.30 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.23
Negative PressureMean L-DEX® Scores30.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.72
p-value: 0.206t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Limb Volume

Arm circumferential measurements of both limbs and hands were taken twice, using a spring-loaded tape measure. The hand was measured in two locations. Upper extremity measurements were taken at 10 centimeter (cm) intervals from the ulnar styloid of the wrist up to a total distance of 40 cm. Circumferences were measured using the procedures outlined by Cornish et al. Limb volume was calculated using the formula for volume of a truncated cone and reported in millilitre (ml)

Time frame: At Baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Limb Volume383.32 mlStandard Deviation 324.74
Negative PressureMean Limb Volume622.17 mlStandard Deviation 396.39
p-value: 0.096t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Limb Volume

Arm circumferential measurements of both limbs and hands were taken twice, using a spring-loaded tape measure. The hand was measured in two locations. Upper extremity measurements were taken at 10 centimeter (cm) intervals from the ulnar styloid of the wrist up to a total distance of 40 cm. Circumferences were measured using the procedures outlined by Cornish et al. Limb volume was calculated using the formula for volume of a truncated cone and reported in millilitre (ml)

Time frame: At 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Limb Volume352.66 mlStandard Deviation 317.74
Negative PressureMean Limb Volume512.98 mlStandard Deviation 332.77
p-value: 0.206t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Lymphedema Index (L-DEX®) Ratio Scores

Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) measurements were taken using a single channel BIS, tetrapolar device (LDex device, ImpediMed, San Diego, CA) to evaluate upper limb bioelectrical impedance. Impedance ratios (unaffected/affected limb) are calculated and converted to L-Dex ratio score. With development of lymphedema, impedance of extremity decreases and L-Dex ratio therefore increases. An L-Dex ratio score of 10 is equivalent to impedance ratio of 1.139 (which is = to 3 standard deviations (SD) from mean normative BIS data) for at-risk dominant arms & 1.066 for at-risk non-dominant arms, respectively. Each 1 standard unit in L-Dex is equivalent to impedance ratio of 0.03. Using this arbitrary scale relevant to normative standards, a patient is determined to have arm lymphedema if L-Dex ratio score exceeds 7.1, which is 2 SD above mean normative data for BIS impedance ratios. Higher L-Dex ratio score means higher impedance ratio between limbs, which means more volume in affected limb.

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: The range of L-DEX ratio scores on our study at baseline were 0.1 - 74.20.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Lymphedema Index (L-DEX®) Ratio Scores23.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.87
Negative PressureMean Lymphedema Index (L-DEX®) Ratio Scores34.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.73
p-value: 0.096t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores

The NQ was originally developed and validated as a phone interview questionnaire to describe the signs and symptoms of breast cancer-related lymphoedema. Participants report subjective differences in the size of the hands, lower arms, and/or upper arms between their right and left sides. For each site difference, the reported score can range from 1 (very slight difference) to 3 (very noticeable difference). The total score can range from 1 (very slight difference at 1 site) to 9 (very noticeable difference at all 3 sites). Higher scores indicate a greater noticeable difference between the two arms

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores3.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.76
Negative PressureMean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores4.27 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
p-value: 0.679t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores

The NQ was originally developed and validated as a phone interview questionnaire to describe the signs and symptoms of breast cancer-related lymphoedema. Participants report subjective differences in the size of the hands, lower arms, and/or upper arms between their right and left sides. For each site difference, the reported score can range from 1 (very slight difference) to 3 (very noticeable difference). The total score can range from 1 (very slight difference at 1 site) to 9 (very noticeable difference at all 3 sites). Higher scores indicate a greater noticeable difference between the two arms

Time frame: At 4 months

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at 4 months

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores2.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.89
Negative PressureMean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores4.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.6
p-value: 0.138t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores

The NQ was originally developed and validated as a phone interview questionnaire to describe the signs and symptoms of breast cancer-related lymphoedema. Participants report subjective differences in the size of the hands, lower arms, and/or upper arms between their right and left sides. For each site difference, the reported score can range from 1 (very slight difference) to 3 (very noticeable difference). The total score can range from 1 (very slight difference at 1 site) to 9 (very noticeable difference at all 3 sites). Higher scores indicate a greater noticeable difference between the two arms

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores2.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.87
Negative PressureMean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores4.27 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.61
p-value: 0.12t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)

The PROMIS for the Upper Extremity is reliable and addresses disability with physical activities that involve upper limb activities. The instrument items include 5 response options, from 1 not at all to 5 very much. Total scores range from 0 to 100. PROMIS UE scores are scored using a T-score metric, with higher scores indicate higher levels of physical functioning of the upper extremity.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)49.35 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.4
Negative PressureMean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)43.14 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.44
p-value: 0.08t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)

The PROMIS for the Upper Extremity is reliable and addresses disability with physical activities that involve upper limb activities. The instrument items include 5 response options, from 1 not at all to 5 very much. Total scores range from 0 to 100. PROMIS UE scores are scored using a T-score metric, with higher scores indicate higher levels of physical functioning of the upper extremity.

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)47.86 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.26
Negative PressureMean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)44.70 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.71
Secondary

Mean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)

The PROMIS 29 v2.0 profile assesses pain intensity using a response scale for each item ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain) on seven health domains (physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance), with four items per domain and one question which addresses pain intensity item. PROMIS-29 domains are scored using a T-score metric, with higher scores indicate higher levels of functioning.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at 4 weeks

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Depression4.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Sleep Disturbance8.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.1
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Anxiety4.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Roles/Activity18.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.4
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Fatigue6.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Pain Interference4.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Physical Function19.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.4
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Pain Interference7.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Physical Function17.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.4
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Anxiety6.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Depression5.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Fatigue8.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Sleep Disturbance10.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.1
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Roles/Activity13.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.9
Comparison: Physical Function Domainp-value: 0.038t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Anxiety Domainp-value: 0.108t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Depression Domainp-value: 0.467t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Fatigue Domainp-value: 0.078t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Sleep Disturbance Domainp-value: 0.147t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Roles/Activity Domainp-value: 0.004t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Pain Interference Domainp-value: 0.032t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)

The PROMIS 29 v2.0 profile assesses pain intensity using a response scale for each item ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain) on seven health domains (physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance), with four items per domain and one question which addresses pain intensity item. PROMIS-29 domains are scored using a T-score metric, with higher scores indicate higher levels of functioning.

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at baseline

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Depression5.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.3
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Sleep Disturbance8.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.3
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Anxiety6.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Roles/Activity18.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.3
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Fatigue7.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.7
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Pain Interference4.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Physical Function19.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Pain Interference7.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Physical Function17.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.6
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Anxiety6.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Depression6.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Fatigue9.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Sleep Disturbance10.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Negative PressureMean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)Roles/Activity15.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.1
Comparison: Physical Function Domainp-value: 0.068t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Anxiety Domainp-value: 0.808t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Depression Domainp-value: 0.557t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Fatigue Domainp-value: 0.049t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Sleep Disturbance Domainp-value: 0.279t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Roles/Activity Domainp-value: 0.02t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Pain Interference Domainp-value: 0.009t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores

The SCQ consists of 13 common medical conditions that are simplified into language that could be understood without any prior medical knowledge. Patients were asked to indicate if they had the condition using a yes/no format. If they indicate that they had a condition, they are asked if they received treatment for it (yes/no; proxy for disease severity) and did it limit their activities (yes/no; indication of functional limitations). • For each condition, a patient can receive a maximum of 3 points. Because there are 13 defined medical conditions and 2 optional conditions, the maximum achievable total score is 45 points as all items were available for use.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores2.25 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.09
Negative PressureMean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores3.42 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.18
p-value: 0.3t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores

The SCQ consists of 13 common medical conditions that are simplified into language that could be understood without any prior medical knowledge. Patients were asked to indicate if they had the condition using a yes/no format. If they indicate that they had a condition, they are asked if they received treatment for it (yes/no; proxy for disease severity) and did it limit their activities (yes/no; indication of functional limitations). • For each condition, a patient can receive a maximum of 3 points. Because there are 13 defined medical conditions and 2 optional conditions, the maximum achievable total score is 45 points as all items were available for use.

Time frame: At Baseline

Population: Only a subset of participants completed the questionnaire at baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores2.25 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.09
Negative PressureMean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores3.42 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.18
p-value: 0.3t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Skin Induration Score

The SkinFibroMeter (Delfin Technologies, Finland) was used to measure tissue induration. The SkinFibroMeter consists of a 1 mm long indenter and a force sensor. The device is gently pressed against the skin. The indenter imposes a constant deformation when the reference plate is in full contact with the skin. The skin and the underlying superficial subcutis resist the deformation. Measurements will be taken bilaterally at 5 locations: the first dorsal web space; the medial forearm halfway between the ulnar styloid and medial epicondyle; the lateral forearm halfway between the radial styloid and the lateral epicondyle; the medial arm 3 inches proximal to the medial epicondyle; and the lateral arm 3 inches proximal to the lateral epicondyle. Five recordings were taken at each location and a mean score was calculated.The induration value in Newtons (N) is recorded.

Time frame: At Baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Skin Induration Score0.077 NewtonsStandard Deviation 0.023
Negative PressureMean Skin Induration Score0.072 NewtonsStandard Deviation 0.021
p-value: 0.552t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Mean Skin Induration Score

The SkinFibroMeter (Delfin Technologies, Finland) was used to measure tissue induration. The SkinFibroMeter consists of a 1 mm long indenter and a force sensor. The device is gently pressed against the skin. The indenter imposes a constant deformation when the reference plate is in full contact with the skin. The skin and the underlying superficial subcutis resist the deformation. Measurements will be taken bilaterally at 5 locations: the first dorsal web space; the medial forearm halfway between the ulnar styloid and medial epicondyle; the lateral forearm halfway between the radial styloid and the lateral epicondyle; the medial arm 3 inches proximal to the medial epicondyle; and the lateral arm 3 inches proximal to the lateral epicondyle. Five recordings were taken at each location and a mean score was calculated.The induration value in Newtons (N) is recorded.

Time frame: At 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Manual Lymph DrainageMean Skin Induration Score0.069 NewtonsStandard Deviation 0.017
Negative PressureMean Skin Induration Score0.065 NewtonsStandard Deviation 0.017
p-value: 0.498t-test, 2 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026