420 likes | 723 Views
Overview. PAL studyBackgroundStudy OverviewBaseline characteristicsMain ResultsDevelopment of BIRSBIRS Results (Speck)Time for questions. Epidemiology of ARM Lymphedema after BrCa. 200-400,000 of the approximately 2 million BrCa survivors in the US have clinically diagnosed lymphedema (Stolberg 1998)The prevalence is estimated at 49% when including self-reported symptoms of lymphedema (Petrek 2000) Incidence varies by studyAs low as 6% after SLNBRecent publication with objective mea9441
E N D
1. Kathryn Schmitz, PhD, MPHAssistant Professor, Principal Investigator Division of Clinical EpidemiologyCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Presentation of Main Results
2. Overview PAL study
Background
Study Overview
Baseline characteristics
Main Results
Development of BIRS
BIRS Results (Speck)
Time for questions
4. Risk factors for lymphedema secondary to cancer Not well-described:
Data from 20-year prospective cohort study of 272 BrCa survivors found:
Significantly associated:
Arm infection, injury and elevated BMI
Not associated:
Occupational and leisure-time physical activity (light, moderate and vigorous)
20-year prospective cohort study of 272 women treated with mastectomy and complete axillary dissection (Petrek 2001)20-year prospective cohort study of 272 women treated with mastectomy and complete axillary dissection (Petrek 2001)
5. Issue: Survivors are at increased risk for chronic disease and morbidity:
osteoporosis, heart disease, and recurrence
Exercise may help women:
regain strength, function, and range of motion after surgery
with re-empowerment & body image
? quality of life after a cancer diagnosis
Decrease risk of chronic disease
6. However… Current clinical guidelines warn breast cancer survivors against vigorous, repetitive, or excessive upper body exercise for fear of increasing risk for lymphedema (Harris 2000)
NLN, ACS, Komen, NCI guidelines –
All restrict upper body activity in women at risk for lymphedema
7. Rationale These guidelines are problematic:
Survivors are limited in activities and rehabilitation
Cannot attain the health benefits of physical activity
There is physiological evidence that exercise may improve lymph flow and resorption
8. To date… Prior interventions have examined the effects of upper body exercise on lymphedema in BrCa survivors
Competitive dragon-boat racing
Upper body aerobic/strength training
No increase in incident lymphedema or increased symptoms in women with or at risk for lymphedema
These studies have been limited by methodology
Case-series
Uncontrolled pre-post designs
Small randomized trials
A group of 20 survivors in British Columbia participated in competitive dragon-boat racing for almost a year – no change in circumference measurements pre-postA group of 20 survivors in British Columbia participated in competitive dragon-boat racing for almost a year – no change in circumference measurements pre-post
9. Based on these findings: Supervised slowly progressive controlled increase in physiological stress through strength training may be more beneficial to BrCa survivors vs. acute stress from activities of daily living
Analogy
Heart attack and shoveling snow
Lymphedema and lifting a heavy object
10. The Physical Activity and Lymphedema (PAL) Trial R01-CA106851 1 year randomized controlled intervention
Twice weekly progressive strength training
Non-exercising control
Recruitment goal = 288 BrCa survivors
Measurements at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months
1/2 with, 1/2 without lymphedema at baseline
1-15 years post-diagnosis
11. PAL Design Go through this slide slowly
PAL trial is a 1 year randomized controlled intervention.
The target # of participants was 288 & was split between those who conducted twice weekly progressive strength training for 12 months (N=144) & Non-exercising control (N=144)
Explain breakdown split b/w LYMPH group (1-15 yrs post diagnosis) and NO LYMPH (at risk) group (1-5 yrs post dx)
Go through this slide slowly
PAL trial is a 1 year randomized controlled intervention.
The target # of participants was 288 & was split between those who conducted twice weekly progressive strength training for 12 months (N=144) & Non-exercising control (N=144)
Explain breakdown split b/w LYMPH group (1-15 yrs post diagnosis) and NO LYMPH (at risk) group (1-5 yrs post dx)
12. Demographics In the orange we have demo data on those w/lypmph etc. If you scale down you see remarkable balance across all tx and control on both lymph and non lymph
Description of participants: Demographics
-Age
-Education
-Ethnicity
We are balanced between treatment groups for age, educ status & ethnicity.
The age range was 36-80 years of age. Average age overall around 55 years.
Well educated group of survivors. Greater than 80% had at least some college or higher. Interesting to see slightly higher rates that completed college in the non lymph group. In the orange we have demo data on those w/lypmph etc. If you scale down you see remarkable balance across all tx and control on both lymph and non lymph
Description of participants: Demographics
-Age
-Education
-Ethnicity
We are balanced between treatment groups for age, educ status & ethnicity.
The age range was 36-80 years of age. Average age overall around 55 years.
Well educated group of survivors. Greater than 80% had at least some college or higher. Interesting to see slightly higher rates that completed college in the non lymph group.
13. Baseline strength and body size in women WITH lymphedema
14. Baseline strength and body size in women WITHOUT lymphedema
15. Baseline Lymphedema Characteristics Remove stand deviation, make type biggerRemove stand deviation, make type bigger
16. Intervention adherence With lymphedema
88% average attendance
Without lymphedema
79% average attendance
Break this out by wave too (wave 1, compared to 2-5) or wave 1&4 vs 2,3,5
Explain waves 1 low resource grp, we expect higher adherence in other grps
Try to get up through wave 5 (if time permits) – will ask amy to help
Question for Katie:
Since max # of session is supposed to be 104 (do we count values over 104 – aren’t these skewing results?)Break this out by wave too (wave 1, compared to 2-5) or wave 1&4 vs 2,3,5
Explain waves 1 low resource grp, we expect higher adherence in other grps
Try to get up through wave 5 (if time permits) – will ask amy to help
Question for Katie:
Since max # of session is supposed to be 104 (do we count values over 104 – aren’t these skewing results?)
17. Strength changes in women WITH lymphedema
18. Strength changes in women WITHOUT lymphedema
19. Lymphedema outcomes in women WITH lymphedema
20. Lymphedema outcomes in women WITHOUT lymphedema
21. Summary Twice weekly slowly progressive strength training is SAFE for breast cancer survivors who have had lymph node removal including
Those WITH lymphedema
Those AT RISK FOR lymphedema
Risk of lymphedema flare-ups decreased by HALF
Strength improvements with this program are substantive
22. Development of the Body Image and Relationships Survey Kathryn Schmitz, PhD, MPHAssistant Professor, Principal Investigator Division of Clinical EpidemiologyCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
23. Outline Development of the BIRS
Part II: effects of weight training on BIRS (Speck)
24. Health Related Quality of Life and Breast Cancer Many domains
Many instruments
Body image less well studied
25. Development of Body Image and Relationships Survey Born of necessity
Weight training for breast cancer survivors study (Ahmed et al. 2006, Ohira et al. 2006, Schmitz et al. 2005)
QOL survey = CARES-SF
Anecdotal comments from participants
Improved
Strength, endurance
Body image
Physical appearance
Feeling ‘sexy’
Marital relationships
Physicality –wanting to be hugged and touched
Openness and camaraderie
26. BIRS development Year 1 of PAL trial
Development of initial version
Review of existing surveys
Review of anecdotal comments from WTBS
Survey with 19 questions developed
27. Original questions During the past month:
I have been satisfied with my sex life or my lack of a sex life
I have been satisfied with my appearance
I have felt sexually attractive
“Having sex” was an important part of my life
I enjoyed sexual activity
I was too tired to have sex
I wanted to have sex with my partner(s)
I have been interested in close physical contact such as hugs and kisses
I have had close physical contact with my family and close friends
I was embarrassed to show my body to others
I was uncomfortable showing my scars to others
I was uncomfortable with the changes in my body
7 more items for those who were not sexually active
28. Focus Group Feedback Focus groups with 21 survivors right after they took survey
WE HAD IT ALL WRONG
Survey revised substantively
29. BIRS Description 32 questions
Likert scale
Recall over past month
30. BIRS: 1 of 3 Lack of energy prevented me from doing things I wanted to do
I had enough energy to do the things I wanted to do
I was uncomfortable with or embarrassed by my lack of energy
I felt physically capable of all the things I wanted to do
My body was strong
I felt physically fit
My body felt healthy to me
I felt physically powerful
Being out of shape prevented me from doing things I wanted to do
The things that determined my health felt beyond my control
I felt embarrassed or uncomfortable because I was out of shape
I felt confident I could make myself stronger
31. BIRS: 2 of 3 I restricted my social activities because of my hot flashes
Hot flashes prevented me from doing things I wanted to do
I restricted my social activities because of changes in my appearance that I attribute to breast cancer surgery
Changes in my physical appearance that I attribute to my breast cancer surgery prevented me from doing things I wanted to do
I restricted my social activities because of my physical appearance
I was embarrassed by my hot flashes
I restricted my social activity because of physical symptoms that I attribute to my breast cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation)
I was uncomfortable with or embarrassed by physical symptoms that I attribute to my breast cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation)
32. BIRS: 3 of 3 I have felt sexually attractive
I was uncomfortable with or embarrassed by changing clothes or showering in the women’s locker room of a fitness facility
I was uncomfortable with or embarrassed by the appearance of my body
My body felt natural to me
I was embarrassed by changes to my physical appearance that I attribute to my breast cancer surgery
My body felt whole to me
I have been satisfied with my sex life
I was comfortable changing clothes and showering in the women’s locker room of a fitness facility
I was comfortable with the appearance of my body
I felt like I had some control over how healthy I was
Sexual activity was an important part of my life
33. BIRth of the BIRS Cognitive interviews with 10 survivors
WE GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME
Formatting
Psychometric assessment in 96 survivors
Test-retest
Comparison to other common QOL surveys
34. Reliability and internal consistency All 32 questions were reliable (mean rho = 0.65)
Chronbach’s alpha = 0.94 for both administrations
Removal of any item did NOT improve alpha, all items retained
35. Principal Axis Factoring 3 major factors identified
Strength and health
Social Barriers
Appearance and Sexuality
36. Strength and Health Perceived physical impairment due to treatment
Decreased energy
Feeling ‘weak’ or ‘unhealthy’
Lack of subjective control over health and strength
12 items
Higher score is worse
Range 0-60
37. Social Barriers Perceived impairment in social interactions
Reduced social activity due to or embarrassment about
Physical symptoms
Psychological symptoms
9 items
Higher score is worse
Range 0-45
38. Appearance and Sexuality Decreased enjoyment of and satisfaction with sexual activity
Embarrassment about physical appearance
Altered perception of one’s body as ‘whole’ and ‘natural’
11 items
Higher score is worse
Range 0-55
39. Convergent/Divergent Validity Comparison to many other domains of QOL
Ideally
Some correlation
Not high correlations
40. Comparative QOL Surveys Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory
Fatigue Symptom Inventory
Happiness Scale
Life Orientation Test
MOS- Social Support
MOS SF-36
Pearlins’ Personal Mastery Scale
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index
Visual Analog Scale QOL
Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale
41. Shared variance Average 17.7%
Range 5.8% to 42.3%
Not high enough to suggest significant conceptual overlap
42. Correlation matrix
43. Conclusions The Body Image and Relationships Survey shows acceptable psychometric properties
Measures domains of interest to survivors
Can and should be used to test interventions to improve body image
Translation work underway…