Sequelae of axillary lymph node dissection in older women with stage 1 and 2 breast carcinoma

44Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

BACKGROUND. There are few data on the long-term sequelae of axillary dissection among older breast carcinoma patients. We describe the impact of axillary dissection in a cohort of older women. METHODS. A longitudinal cohort of 571 patients with Stage 1 and 2 breast carcinoma, 67 years and older, diagnosed between 1995 and 1997 from 29 hospitals in five regions, and followed for 2 years. Data were collected from patients and medical charts. The primary outcome was posttreatment quality of life. Generalized estimation equation longitudinal modeling was used to evaluate the outcome, controlling for baseline function, comorbidity, age, clinical status, and other factors. RESULTS. Sixty percent of women reported arm problems at some time in the 2 years after surgery. The cumulative risk of having arm problems 2 years posttreatment was three times higher (95% confidence interval 1.94-4.67) for women who underwent axillary surgery compared with women without axillary surgery, controlling for covariates. The effects of having axillary dissection and arthritis were multiplicative 2 years postsurgery. Arm problems were, in turn, the primary determinate of lower physical and mental functioning (P = 0.0001 and 0.04, respectively), controlling for other factors. Undergoing axillary dissection did not lessen fears about recurrence. CONCLUSIONS. Arm problems after axillary dissection have a consistent negative impact on quality of life, suggesting that the risks may outweigh the potential benefits in this population. © 2002 American Cancer Society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mandelblatt, J. S., Edge, S. B., Meropol, N. J., Senie, R., Tsangaris, T., Grey, L., … Weeks, J. C. (2002). Sequelae of axillary lymph node dissection in older women with stage 1 and 2 breast carcinoma. Cancer, 95(12), 2445–2454. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10983

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free