Back

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of breast cancer-related lymphoedema due to treatment combinations

Frattolin, J.; Grujic, I.; Swarup, A.; Vella, A.; Kalamaras, I.; Wang, B.; Watson, D.; Drosou, A.; Thiruchelvam, P.; Moore, J.

2025-06-13 oncology
10.1101/2025.06.11.25329404 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDBreast cancer related-lymphoedema (BCRL) is a chronic, debilitating disease for which there is no cure. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the association between different treatment combinations on the incidence of BCRL. METHODSThe review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines with four databases searched for studies published from 2000-2020, including OVID Medline, OVID Embase, Cochrane Library for Registered Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, yielding 2640 studies. A random effects model was used to determine BCRL incidence rates stratified by treatment types of the qualifying studies. RESULTSThe pooled incidence rate was 23% (95% CI 20.8 - 25.4) for patients who received axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and 5.6% (95% CI 4.5 - 6.8) for patients who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). A higher level of intervention to the axilla was identified as the key factor associated with significantly increased BCRL incidence, including ALND (p<0.001), the number of lymph nodes removed (p<0.001), and axillary radiotherapy (p<0.001). Higher patient BMI was also identified to increase BCRL incidence. Combinations of other treatments, in conjunction with ALND or SLNB, did not lead to statistically significant differences in incidence. Furthermore, different diagnostic criteria resulted in substantial variation in BCRL incidence rates. CONCLUSIONAxilla intervention was associated with increased BCRL incidence including ALND, number of lymph nodes removed, and radiotherapy. The inclusion of additional surgical or non-surgical treatments did not. This analysis re-emphasises the clear need for standardised reporting of patient treatments as well as universally applied diagnostic protocols.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.