A promising step forward: early results from a randomized clinical trial support the efficacy of immediate lymphatic reconstruction following axillary lymph node dissection

Spencer Yakaback,Ish Bains,Claire Temple-Oberle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-23-520

2024-04-27

Gland Surgery

Abstract:Spencer Yakaback 1 , Ish Bains 1,2 , Claire Temple-Oberle 1,2 1 Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 2 Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Comment on: Coriddi M, Dayan J, Bloomfield E, et al . Efficacy of Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction to Decrease Incidence of Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema: Preliminary Results of Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 2023;278:630-7. Keywords: Lymphedema; lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA); immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR); lymphatic reconstruction Submitted Dec 20, 2023. Accepted for publication Mar 08, 2024. Published online Apr 24, 2024. doi: 10.21037/gs-23-520 Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) is a persistent challenge following axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) (1). Based on a systematic review from our own institution, BCRL can affect up to 32% of patients undergoing ALND, leading to lifelong functional and social challenges (2). The microsurgical community has developed innovative procedures to try to reduce limb volume in women with BCRL, such as lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularized lymph node transplant (3). Even more exciting to consider is a preventative approach, named immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR), using LVA completed at the time of ALND (4). This procedure involves the identification and preservation of length on arm lymphatic vessels during the ALND and subsequent anastomosis of these lymphatics into branches of regional veins, thereby allowing for ongoing lymphatic drainage through existing lymphatic channels, which would have otherwise been divided and scarred off (4). While initial use of LVA focused on treating lymphedema, its use for ILR was first described by Boccardo et al. in 2009 (4,5). Since that time, interest in the procedure has grown, with recent studies demonstrating a reduction in the absolute risk of BCRL of 27.3% (6.7% BCRL in the ILR group vs. 34% BCRL in the standard care group) (2). This represents a risk ratio of 0.22 and a number needed to treat of 4 (2). ILR has also recently been shown to be oncologically safe, as well as cost effective (6,7). These promising early studies have sparked ongoing interest in the procedure and the need for further research into its efficacy, particularly in the form of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) which has not yet been presented in the literature. Fortunately, such a trial is currently underway by Coriddi et al. , who have just published their preliminary results (8). This trial is the first of its kind to randomize breast cancer patients undergoing ALND to either ILR or standard care, ALND only, and will provide valuable information into the true efficacy of this procedure. We have been given the pleasure of providing an editorial commentary on this paper. First of all, we commend the authors for taking on this trial, and persevering with it throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As we await the final report of their trial, the preliminary results are already demonstrating promise. In their preliminary results, Coriddi et al. present an analysis of their first 99 patients (49 intervention and 50 control), who all had at least 12 months of follow-up, with a median follow-up of 18 months. Patients were well balanced between groups in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), race and cancer treatments. Very promisingly, they found the cumulative incidence of BCRL to be significantly lower in the ILR group than in the control group (9.5% vs. 32%; P=0.014), which provides support for the procedure. The authors plan to ultimately report on 174 patients with 24 months of follow-up in their final analysis which we anticipate will further strengthen their results, although it is important to note that statistical significance may change once all patients have been analyzed, depending on the number of patients that develop lymphedema. As we have identified through our own lymphedema research, this field of research is not without its challenges, the first of which is the diagnosis of lymphedema itself (9,10). Past studies have used a variety of methods and measurements to diagnose lymphedema, ranging from changes in limb volume over time to imaging modalities such as lymphoscintigraphy and SPY-PHI technology (Stryker Endoscopy, San Jose, CA, USA) and more recently disease-specific patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) (9). In their RCT, Coriddi et al. chose to use relative volume change (RVC) to diagnose lymphedema, with a >10% difference being used for a diagnostic cutoff, where limb measurements taken at 4 cm interval starting at the wrist are then used to calculate limb volume based on a truncated cone formula (11). Although widely used as a common diagnostic method, the autho -Abstract Truncated-

surgery