Sheila H Ridner1, Mary S Dietrich2, Jie Deng3, Sandra L Ettema4, Barbara Murphy5. 1. Vanderbilt School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, 461 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37240, USA. sheila.ridner@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Vanderbilt School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Drive, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 3. University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, 418 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4217, USA. 4. Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 19620, Springfield, IL, 62794-9620, USA. 5. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Drive, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Lymphedema associated with head and neck cancer (HNC) therapy causes adverse clinical outcomes. Standard treatment includes professionally administered complete decongestive therapy (CDT). Cost and availability of trained therapists are known barriers to therapy. Advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCD) may address these issues. A randomized, wait-list controlled trial was undertaken to evaluate an APCD in post-treatment HNC patients with lymphedema. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Eligible patients had completed treatment for HNC, were disease free, and had lymphedema at enrollment. Participants were randomized to wait-list lymphedema self-management (standard of care) or lymphedema self-management plus the use of the APCD bid. Safety (CTCAE V4.0) and feasibility were primary endpoints; secondary endpoints included efficacy measure by objective examination and patient reported outcomes (symptoms, quality of life, function), adherence barriers, and satisfaction. Assessments were conducted at baseline and weeks 4 and 8. RESULTS:Forty-nine patients were enrolled (wait-list n = 25; intervention n = 24). In total, forty-three patients completed the study. No device-related Serious Adverse Events were reported. Most patients used the APCD once per day, instead of the prescribed twice per day, citing time related factors as barriers to use. APCD use was associated with significant improvement in perceived ability to control lymphedema (p = 0.003) and visible external swelling (front view p < 0.001, right view p = 0.004, left p = 0.005), as well as less reported pain. CONCLUSION: This trial supports the safety and feasibility of the APCD for the treatment of secondary lymphedema in head and neck cancer patients. In addition, preliminary data supports efficacy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Lymphedema associated with head and neck cancer (HNC) therapy causes adverse clinical outcomes. Standard treatment includes professionally administered complete decongestive therapy (CDT). Cost and availability of trained therapists are known barriers to therapy. Advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCD) may address these issues. A randomized, wait-list controlled trial was undertaken to evaluate an APCD in post-treatment HNC patients with lymphedema. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eligible patients had completed treatment for HNC, were disease free, and had lymphedema at enrollment. Participants were randomized to wait-list lymphedema self-management (standard of care) or lymphedema self-management plus the use of the APCD bid. Safety (CTCAE V4.0) and feasibility were primary endpoints; secondary endpoints included efficacy measure by objective examination and patient reported outcomes (symptoms, quality of life, function), adherence barriers, and satisfaction. Assessments were conducted at baseline and weeks 4 and 8. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were enrolled (wait-list n = 25; intervention n = 24). In total, forty-three patients completed the study. No device-related Serious Adverse Events were reported. Most patients used the APCD once per day, instead of the prescribed twice per day, citing time related factors as barriers to use. APCD use was associated with significant improvement in perceived ability to control lymphedema (p = 0.003) and visible external swelling (front view p < 0.001, right view p = 0.004, left p = 0.005), as well as less reported pain. CONCLUSION: This trial supports the safety and feasibility of the APCD for the treatment of secondary lymphedema in head and neck cancerpatients. In addition, preliminary data supports efficacy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fibrosis; Head and neck cancer; Lymphedema; Pneumatic compression device
Authors: Jie Deng; Sheila H Ridner; Mary S Dietrich; Nancy Wells; Kenneth A Wallston; Robert J Sinard; Anthony J Cmelak; Barbara A Murphy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Sheila H Ridner; Mary S Dietrich; Kenneth Niermann; Anthony Cmelak; Kyle Mannion; Barbara Murphy Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 2.589
Authors: Barbara A Murphy; Mary S Dietrich; Nancy Wells; Kathleen Dwyer; Sheila H Ridner; Heidi J Silver; Jill Gilbert; Christine H Chung; Anthony Cmelak; Brian Burkey; Wendell G Yarbrough; Robert Sinard; James Netterville Journal: Head Neck Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Dona E C Locke; Paul A Decker; Jeff A Sloan; Paul D Brown; James F Malec; Matthew M Clark; Teresa A Rummans; Karla V Ballman; Paul L Schaefer; Jan C Buckner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer K Doersam; Mary S Dietrich; Melissa A Adair; Bethany Rhoten; Jie Deng; Sheila H Ridner Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 2.589
Authors: Sara C Parke; David Michael Langelier; Jessica Tse Cheng; Cristina Kline-Quiroz; Michael Dean Stubblefield Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 5.075