| Literature DB >> 29368210 |
Iwona Głowacka-Mrotek1, Magdalena Sowa2,3, Tomasz Nowikiewicz2,4, Zygmunt Siedlecki5, Wojciech Hagner6, Wojciech Zegarski2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Along with the improvement in the outcomes of breast cancer treatment being observed in the recent years, long-term studies to assess distant adverse effects of the treatment have become increasingly important. The objective of this study was to assess the foot posture in patients subjected to breast-conserving therapy. The assessment was made 5 years after the surgical procedure.Entities:
Keywords: Adverse effects; Breast-conserving therapy; Feet; Photogrammetric assessment
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29368210 PMCID: PMC5906506 DOI: 10.1007/s12282-018-0835-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer ISSN: 1340-6868 Impact factor: 4.239
Clinical characteristics of the study group
| Variable | Results | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| Body weight before surgery | ||
| Body weight after surgery | ||
| Height | ||
| BMI before surgery | ||
| BMI after surgery | ||
| Operated side | ||
| L | 56 (48.28%) | |
| R | 60 (51.72%) | |
| Procedure type | ||
| BCT + SLNB | 60 (51.72%) | |
| BCT + ALND | 56 (48.28%) | |
| Menopausal status | ||
| Yes | 83 (71.55%) | |
| No | 33 (28.45%) | |
| ER | ||
| (+) | 97 (83.62%) | |
| (−) | 19 (16.38%) | |
| PR | ||
| (+) | 85 (73.27%) | |
| (−) | 31 (26.72%) | |
| HER2 | ||
| (−) | 49 (42.24%) | |
| (+ 1) | 50 (43.10%) | |
| (+ 2) | 2 (1.72%) | |
| (+ 3) | 15 (12.93%) | |
| Clinical stage | ||
| I A | 86 (74.14%) | |
| II A | 22 (18.97%) | |
| II B | 8 (6.90%) | |
| Number of dissected nodes | ||
| Number of affected nodes | ||
| Supplementary treatment | ||
| RTH | 62 (53.45%) | |
| CHTH + RTH | 54 (46.55%) | |
M arithmetic mean, S.D standard deviation, Me median, BMI body mass index, L left, R right, BCT + SLNB breast-conserving therapy + sentinel lymph node biopsy, BCT + ALND breast-conserving therapy + axillary lymph node dissection, ER estrogen receptor, PR progesterone receptor, HER2 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, RTH radiotherapy, CHTH chemotherapy
Comparison of foot assessment parameters in the study patients
| Tested parameter | F1 | F2 | Student’s | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Median | Standard deviation | Mean | Median | Standard deviation |
|
| |
| Foot load | 36.00 | 34.75 | 6.54 | 37.23 | 36.50 | 6.01 | − 3.3510 | 0.0011 |
| L | 224.85 | 227.00 | 12.83 | 225.66 | 227.00 | 12.67 | − 2.1726 | 0.0319 |
| W | 86.59 | 86.00 | 6.25 | 87.01 | 88.00 | 6.02 | − 0.9067 | 0.3664 |
| Foot L/W | 2.61 | 2.62 | 0.18 | 2.60 | 2.60 | 0.15 | 0.7638 | 0.4466 |
| ALPFA | 8.35 | 7.60 | 5.50 | 8.48 | 7.80 | 5.38 | − 0.2760 | 0.7830 |
| BETA | 15.91 | 15.45 | 7.73 | 15.76 | 14.95 | 8.62 | 0.1762 | 0.8604 |
| GAMMA | 15.32 | 15,05 | 2.73 | 15.64 | 15.40 | 4.71 | − 0.7354 | 0.4636 |
| KY | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.25 | − 0.5979 | 0.5511 |
| CL | 51.42 | 52.80 | 13.82 | 52.26 | 54.90 | 12.94 | − 0.7726 | 0.4413 |
| HW | 51.23 | 51.45 | 4.83 | 51.46 | 51.05 | 5.65 | − 0.6747 | 0.5012 |
| FA | 61.79 | 61.50 | 24.49 | 61.98 | 63.00 | 24.40 | − 0.1750 | 0.8614 |
F1 foot on the operated breast side, F2 foot on the contralateral side, L foot length, W foot width, L/W Wejsflog index, ALPHA hallux valgus angle, BETA little toe varus angle, GAMMA heel angle, KY Sztriter–Godunov index, CL Clarke’s angle, HW heel width, WFA weighted foot area, p calculated probability value
Comparison of categorized sizes of the transverse and the longitudinal arch of foot in the study patients
| Transverse arch size | L/W | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | F2 | ||||
|
| % |
| % | ||
| High arch | 2 | 1.724 | 1 | 0.862 | Ch^2 = 2.6311 |
| Normal arch | 93 | 80.172 | 102 | 87.931 | |
| Fallen arch | 21 | 18.103 | 13 | 11.207 | |
F1 foot on the operated breast side, F2 foot on the contralateral side, L/W Wejsflog index, KY Sztriter–Godunov index, p calculated probability value
Comparison of categorized ALPHA and BETA angles in the study group
| ALPHA |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | F2 | ||||
|
| % |
| % | ||
| 0–9° | 70 | 60.345 | 72 | 62.07 | Ch^2 = 0.0726 |
| > 9° | 46 | 39.655 | 44 | 37.93 | |
F1 foot on the operated breast side, F2 foot on the contralateral side, ALPHA hallux valgus angle, BETA little toe varus angle. p value of calculated probability
Comparison of foot postures in the study patients depending on the type of surgical procedure within the axillary fossa lymph node system
| Tested parameter | BCT + SLNB, | BCT + ALND, | Comparison F1 vs F3, F2 vs F4, statistical significance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foot on operated side F1, mean | Foot on contralateral side F2, mean |
| Foot on operated side F3, mean | Foot on contralateral side F4, mean |
| ||
| Lower limb load | 36.38 | 37.43 | 0.1726 | 35.60 | 37.01 | 0.0422 | |
| L | 225.28 | 226.28 | 0.2247 | 224.39 | 225.00 | 0.6735 | |
| W | 86.75 | 87.33 | 0.7965 | 86.43 | 86.66 | 0.9850 | |
| L/W | 2.62 | 2.59 | 0.7334 | 2.61 | 2.61 | 0.9999 | |
| ALPHA | 8.62 | 8.88 | 0.9790 | 8.06 | 8.05 | 0.9999 | |
| BETA | 16.15 | 15.67 | 0.9790 | 15.66 | 15.85 | 0.9987 | |
| GAMMA | 15.24 | 16.07 | 0.5320 | 15.40 | 15.19 | 0.9866 | |
| KY | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.9943 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.6764 | |
| CL | 52.54 | 51.49 | 0.8983 | 50.22 | 53.09 | 0.2584 | |
| HW | 51.16 | 51.47 | 0.9201 | 51.30 | 51.46 | 0.9899 | |
| FA | 59.41 | 60.08 | 0.9667 | 64.35 | 64.01 | 0.9958 | |
BCT + SLNB group undergoing BCT + SLNB surgery, BCT + ALND group undergoing BCT + ALND surgery, F1 foot on the operated breast side, F2 foot on the contralateral side, L foot length, W foot width, L/W Wejsflog index, ALPHA hallux valgus angle, BETA little toe varus angle, GAMMA heel angle, KY Sztriter–Godunov index, CL Clarke’s angle, HW heel width, WFA weighted foot area, p1 F1 vs F3, p2 F2 vs F4, p calculated probability value