| Literature DB >> 31422715 |
Chunhui Wang1, Ming Yang2, Yingyi Fan3, Xiaohua Pei3.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of moxibustion on relieving breast cancer-related lymphedema. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: BCRL; breast cancer–related lymphedema; effect observation; moxibustion; randomized controlled trial; traditional Chinese medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31422715 PMCID: PMC6700867 DOI: 10.1177/1534735419866919
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Integr Cancer Ther ISSN: 1534-7354 Impact factor: 3.279
Figure 1.Flow chart of patient allocation.
Demographic Characteristics and Baseline Measurements.
| Characteristic | Control Group (n = 24) | Treatment Group (n = 24) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||
| Age (years) | 58.25 ± 6.19 | 59.42 ± 7.02 | .55 |
| Height (m) | 1.61 ± 0.03 | 1.60 ± 0.03 | .52 |
| Weight (kg) | 61.95 ± 4.68 | 59.75 ± 6.32 | .18 |
| Surgical methods for treating breast cancer | |||
| Breast conserving surgery (right) | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Breast cancer modified radical mastectomy (right) | 10 | 10 | |
| Total mastectomy (right) | 0 | 1 | |
| Breast cancer modified radical mastectomy (left) | 11 | 12 | |
| Total mastectomy (left) | 2 | 1 | |
| Pathological type of cancer | |||
| Ductal carcinoma in situ | 0 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 22 | 22 | |
| Invasive lobular carcinoma | 2 | 1 | |
| Tumor stages[ | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| I | 10 | 6 | .10 |
| II | 14 | 14 | |
| III | 0 | 4 | |
| IV | 0 | 0 | |
| Radiotherapy | |||
| Yes | 13 | 18 | .13 |
| No | 11 | 6 | |
| Frequency | 25.00 ± 6.45 | 24.84 ± 7.04 | .95 |
| Course of edema (M) | 29.42 ± 17.43 | 30.96 ± 24.39 | .80 |
| Affected-side arm circumference (cm) | |||
| Wrist crease | 17.97 ± 1.33 | 17.69 ± 1.53 | .50 |
| Proximal 10 cm to wrist elbow | 24.60 ± 2.50 | 24.84 ± 3.17 | .78 |
| Elbow crease | 29.56 ± 2.69 | 28.48 ± 2.41 | .15 |
| Proximal 10 cm to elbow crease | 33.48 ± 3.02 | 32.146 ± 3.33 | .15 |
| Mean circumference of arm | 26.40 ± 2.11 | 25.79 ± 2.24 | .33 |
| VAS swelling score | 7.17 ± 1.01 | 7.54 ± 1.14 | .23 |
| RPFS | |||
| Behavior dimension | 4.92 ± 1.18 | 5.06 ± 1.08 | .67 |
| Emotional dimension | 4.50 ± 1.27 | 4.59 ± 0.86 | .79 |
| Sensory dimension | 5.20 ± 1.29 | 5.14 ± 1.04 | .86 |
| cognitive dimension | 4.45 ± 1.17 | 4.61 ± 0.80 | .58 |
| Total score | 4.75 ± 1.04 | 4.85 ± 0.77 | .71 |
Abbreviations: VAS, Visual Analog Scale; RPFS, Revised Piper Fatigue Scale.
The tumor stages (0, I, II, III, and IV) were applied according to the International Standard TNM Stage method proposed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer.
Comparison of Affected-Side Arm Circumference Mean Value at Different Measuring Positions[a].
| Treatment Group (n = 24) | Control Group (n = 24) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affected-side arm circumference mean value | |||
| 0 week after treatment | 25.61 ± 2.11 | 26.70 ± 1.93 | .078 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 24.48 ± 2.02[ | 26.09 ± 1.81[ | .005 |
| Difference value[ | 1.13 | 0.61 | |
| | .000 | .003 | |
| Wrist crease | |||
| 0 week after treatment | 17.55 ± 1.39 | 18.07 ± 1.36 | .357 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 16.93 ± 1.28[ | 17.66 ± 1.17[ | .018 |
| Difference value[ | 0.62 | 0.41 | |
| | .002 | .011 | |
| Proximal 10 cm to wrist crease | |||
| 0 week after treatment | 24.27 ± 2.93 | 24.86 ± 2.33 | .191 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 22.95 ± 2.75[ | 24.02 ± 1.72[ | .012 |
| Difference value[ | 1.32 | 0.84 | |
| | .000 | .008 | |
| Elbow crease | |||
| 0 week after treatment | 28.25 ± 2.16 | 29.91 ± 2.51[ | .018 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 27.25 ± 1.92[ | 29.08 ± 2.72[ | .014 |
| Difference value[ | 1.00 | 0.83 | |
| | .000 | .000 | |
| Proximal 10 cm to elbow crease | |||
| 0 week after treatment | 32.02 ± 3.35 | 33.95 ± 2.69[ | .039 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 30.77 ± 3.11[ | 33.59 ± 2.73[ | .002 |
| Difference value[ | 1.25 | 0.36 | |
| | .000 | .246 | |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Difference value = data of 4 weeks after treatment − 0 weeks after treatment.
Compared with 0 weeks after treatment, P < .05. **Compared with 0 weeks after treatment, P < .01.
Compared with treatment group, P < .05.
Compared with treatment group, P < .01.
Figure 2.Differences in affected-side arm circumference at various follow-up time points. The lines represent the difference in the affected-side arm circumference at treatment weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the control group (blocks) and treatment group (dots). The difference in the affected-side arm circumference = affected-side arm circumference without treatment − affected-side arm circumference after treatment. Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores[a].
| Treatment Group (n = 24) | Control Group (n = 24) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 week after treatment | 7.57 ± 1.16 | 7.32 ± 0.89 | .301 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 4.87 ± 0.87[ | 5.41 ± 0.80[ | .033 |
|
| .000 | .000 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Compared with 0 weeks after treatment, P < .01.
Compared with treatment group, P < .05.
Comparison of Revised Piper Fatigue Total Score[a].
| Treatment Group (n = 24) | Control Group (n = 24) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 week after treatment | 4.85 ± 0.79 | 4.87 ± 0.98 | .609 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 4.43 ± 0.63 | 4.69 ± 0.77 | .085 |
|
| .000 | .000 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Compared with 0 weeks after treatment, P < .01.
Figure 3.Comparison of 4 dimensions of the Revised Piper Fatigue Score. Bars represent the score of the behavior dimension, emotional dimension, sensory dimension, and cognitive dimension before and after treatment in the control group (black) and treatment group (gray). Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation. *Compared with 0 weeks after treatment, P < .05; **compared with 0 weeks after treatment, P < .01.