CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03252145Updated Jan 15, 2021Results posted

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

An interventional study of PhysioTouch and Manual Lymph Drainage (MLD) in Lymphedema, Secondary and Lymphedema of Upper Limb, sponsored by University of California, San Francisco. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-01-15.

Sponsored by University of California, San Francisco · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
28
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study 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.

Read the 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

02

Conditions studied

  • Lymphedema, Secondary
  • Lymphedema of Upper Limb
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts 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

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
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
28 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Negative Pressure

    PhysioTouch (negative pressure massage) treatment 3 times a week for 4 weeks to the lymphedematous upper limb

    Device: PhysioTouch

  • Active comparator
    Manual Lymph Drainage

    Manual lymph drainage (MLD) treatment 3 times a week for 4 weeks to the lymphedematous upper limb

    Other: Manual Lymph Drainage (MLD)

Interventions

  • DevicePhysioTouch

    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.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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

  2. 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

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

06

Results

Posted Jan 8, 2021

Participant flow

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.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Started1315
Completed1113
Not completed22
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject10
Withdrew: Complicating disease12

Outcome measures

PrimaryRecruitment 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
Reported as:
Number · rate of recruitment
Recruitment Rates
rate of recruitmentManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Recruitment Rates32.537.5
PrimaryPercentage 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
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Completed All Study Visits
percentage of participantsManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Percentage of Participants Who Completed All Study Visits84.686.7
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · ml
Mean Limb Volume
mlManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Limb Volume383.32 ± 324.74622.17 ± 396.39
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.096
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · ml
Mean Limb Volume
mlManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Limb Volume352.66 ± 317.74512.98 ± 332.77
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.206
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Lymphedema Index (L-DEX®) Ratio Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Lymphedema Index (L-DEX®) Ratio Scores23.09 ± 20.8734.16 ± 24.73
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.096
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean L-DEX® Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean L-DEX® Scores26.30 ± 22.2330.09 ± 22.72
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.206
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · Newtons
Mean Skin Induration Score
NewtonsManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Skin Induration Score0.077 ± 0.0230.072 ± 0.021
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.552
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · Newtons
Mean Skin Induration Score
NewtonsManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Skin Induration Score0.069 ± 0.0170.065 ± 0.017
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.498
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · degrees
Mean Degrees of Shoulder Range of Motion
degreesManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Affected arm167.5 ± 5.0157.1 ± 34.0
Unaffected arm168.5 ± 6.9163.7 ± 12.7
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.264
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.224
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · degrees
Mean Degrees of Shoulder Range of Motion
degreesManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Affected arm170.5 ± 6.0165.5 ± 9.5
Unaffected arm169.3 ± 7.5164.6 ± 11.6
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.125
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.241
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · kilograms of force
Mean Grip Score
kilograms of forceManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Affected Arm24.0 ± 4.721.5 ± 6.4
Unaffected Arm25.7 ± 6.824.5 ± 4.3
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.261
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.597
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · kilograms of force
Mean Grip Score
kilograms of forceManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Affected arm26.4 ± 6.625.2 ± 4.1
Unaffected arm25.5 ± 6.122.6 ± 5.5
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.596
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.219
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score89.12 ± 13.7988.18 ± 8.74
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.842
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Score91.8 ± 4.0490.91 ± 9.44
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.772
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores2.25 ± 2.093.42 ± 3.18
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.300
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) Scores2.25 ± 2.093.42 ± 3.18
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.300
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores3.83 ± 2.764.27 ± 2.20
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.679
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores2.75 ± 1.874.27 ± 2.61
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.120
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Norman Questionnaire (NQ) Scores2.71 ± 1.894.56 ± 2.60
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.138
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores12.40 ± 16.8321.45 ± 18.44
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.096
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Scores11.20 ± 16.0317.62 ± 18.22
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.206
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)47.86 ± 6.2644.70 ± 7.71
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Physical Function for the Upper Extremity (UE)49.35 ± 6.4043.14 ± 8.44
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.080
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Physical Function19.4 ± 1.017.6 ± 2.6
Anxiety6.5 ± 3.06.8 ± 3.5
Depression5.7 ± 2.36.5 ± 3.5
Fatigue7.0 ± 2.79.6 ± 3.0
Sleep Disturbance8.6 ± 3.310.0 ± 2.2
Roles/Activity18.1 ± 2.315.1 ± 3.1
Pain Interference4.5 ± 1.57.5 ± 2.8
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.068
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.808
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.557
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.049
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.279
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.020
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.009
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Scores on the Participant Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) (Version 2)
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Physical Function19.8 ± 0.4017.2 ± 3.4
Anxiety4.9 ± 1.36.7 ± 3.0
Depression4.5 ± 1.05.1 ± 2.2
Fatigue6.5 ± 2.88.9 ± 3.2
Sleep Disturbance8.0 ± 3.110.4 ± 4.1
Roles/Activity18.5 ± 2.413.9 ± 3.9
Pain Interference4.9 ± 1.47.9 ± 4.0
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.038
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.108
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.467
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.078
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.147
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.004
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.032
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores114.3 ± 21.8113.6 ± 21.1
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.938
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) Scores118.4 ± 14.4114.7 ± 18.8
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.603
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score8.8 ± 6.69.4 ± 8.4
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.837
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Body Image Scale (BIS) Score7.7 ± 6.49.5 ± 7.5
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.511
SecondaryMean 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
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Mean Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) Scores
score on a scaleManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
Mean Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) - Treatment Satisfaction - General (TSG) Scores24.6 ± 5.927.0 ± 5.2
Statistical analysis
  • Manual Lymph Drainage vs Negative Pressure · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.326

Adverse events

Collected over Up to 4 weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Manual Lymph Drainage0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)1/13 (7.7%)
Negative Pressure0/15 (0%)0/15 (0%)4/15 (26.7%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventManual Lymph DrainageNegative Pressure
LeukemiaNeoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)1/130/15
CellulitisSkin and subcutaneous tissue disorders0/131/15
Elbow FractureInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/131/15
Limb PainGeneral disorders0/131/15
Shoulder/Neck PainGeneral disorders0/131/15

Baseline characteristics

Age, Customized
Age, Customized(Participants)Manual Lymph DrainageNegative PressureTotal
30-39 years old112
40-49 years old112
50-59 years old448
60-69 years old538
70-79 years old257
80-89 years old011
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Manual Lymph DrainageNegative PressureTotal
Female131528
Male000
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Manual Lymph DrainageNegative PressureTotal
Hispanic or Latino101
Not Hispanic or Latino121527
Unknown or Not Reported000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Manual Lymph DrainageNegative PressureTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian112
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American134
White101121
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported101
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Manual Lymph DrainageNegative PressureTotal
United States131528
07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of California San Francisco
    San Francisco, California 94158, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Lampinen R, Lee JQ, Leano J, Miaskowski C, Mastick J, Brinker L, Topp K, Smoot B. Treatment of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema Using Negative Pressure Massage: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Aug;102(8):1465-1472.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.03.022. Epub 2021 Apr 16. PubMed 33872573 ↗

Study documents

  • Informed consent form · Dec 10, 2018
  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Mar 13, 2018

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03252145
Lead sponsor
University of California, San Francisco
Collaborators
Foundation for Physical Therapy, Inc.
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 17, 2017
Start date
Oct 31, 2017
Primary completion
Jan 31, 2020
Completion
Jan 31, 2020
Results posted
Jan 8, 2021
Last update
Jan 15, 2021

Study contacts

Betty Smoot, DPTSc, MAS
principal investigator · University of California, San Francisco

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion