Prevalence and Influencing Factors of Upper Limb Musculoskeletal Disorders Associated with Paclitaxel in Surgically Treated Women with Breast Cancer: A Secondary Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study

Prevalence and Influencing Factors of Upper Limb Musculoskeletal Disorders Associated with Paclitaxel in Surgically Treated Women with Breast Cancer: A Secondary Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Abstract

Background and Objective: Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy among women worldwide. Despite significant advances in surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, complications such as paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy continue to severely impact patients' quality of life. Paclitaxel disrupts microtubule dynamics and axonal transport, leading to nerve damage and functional impairments in the upper limbs. The combined effects of surgical interventions, radiotherapy, and paclitaxel treatment further increase the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the prevalence and contributing factors of upper limb musculoskeletal disorders associated with paclitaxel in women who have undergone surgical treatment for breast cancer.
Materials & Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. The study sample consisted of women aged 18 years and older who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, undergone surgery, and were candidates for treatment with paclitaxel and radiotherapy. A convenience sampling method was employed based on a pre-calculated sample size, resulting in the inclusion of 100 patients. Demographic and clinical data were systematically collected, and musculoskeletal issues were evaluated through standardized physical examinations focusing on the shoulder, elbow, carpal tunnel syndrome, and tenosynovitis of the thumb. Patients were classified according to the affected—either the affected side or the healthy side—and the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders on each side was assessed. Statistical analyses included the Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and t-tests for qualitative data assessment, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
Results: The physical examination of the shoulder revealed significant findings, with the highest rates of negative outcomes observed in the Cross Over test (69%; 69 patients) and the Yergason test (66%; 66 patients). The Empty Can test indicated a positive response in 21% (21 patients) on the affected side, while 8% (8 patients) exhibited bilateral positive responses. Furthermore, the Neer Impingement test showed positive findings in 23% (23 patients) on the affected side and 12% (12 patients) bilaterally. The Hawkins-Kennedy test revealed positive results in 20% (20 patients) on the affected side and 9% (9 patients) bilaterally. The Compression test was positive in 25% (25 patients) on the affected side, with only 2% (2 patients) reporting bilateral positive findings on the Cross Over test, illustrating varied patterns of shoulder structural involvement among participants.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that musculoskeletal disorders and shoulder pathologies in surgically treated women with breast cancer receiving paclitaxel predominantly occur on the affected side, with a notably high prevalence of subacromial impingement, while acromioclavicular joint involvement is minimal. These results highlight the significant interplay among surgical effects, drug-induced neuropathy, and radiotherapy in the development of these disorders, underscoring the need for targeted assessments and rehabilitation strategies.

Keywords

Breast Neoplasms

Paclitaxel

Cross-Sectional Studies

1. American Cancer Society (2020) Cancer Facts & Figures 2020. American Cancer Society, Atlanta.

2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136: E359–E386.

3. Fuller MS, Lee CI, Elmore JG (2015) Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update. Med Clin N Am 99:451–468.

4. Simon SD, Bines J, Werutsky G, Nunes JS, Pacheco FC, Segalla JG, Gomes AJS, Adam van Eyll BMHR, Gimenes DL, Crocamo S, Freitas-Junior R, Lago LD, Queiroz GS, Jobim de Azevedo S, Rosa DD, Delgado G, Borges GS, Verônica do Nascimento Y, Zaffaroni F, Martínez-Mesa J, Barrios CHE (2019) Characteristics and prognosis of stage I-III breast cancer subtypes in Brazil: the AMAZONA retrospective cohort study. Breast 44: 113–119.

5. Cristina Martins da Silva R, Rezende LF (2014) Assessment of impact of late postoperative physical functional disabilities on quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Tumori J 100(1): 87–90.

6. Nascimento SLD, Oliveira RRD, Oliveira MMFD, Amaral MTPD (2012) Complicações e condutas fisioterapêuticas após cirurgia por câncer de mama: estudo retrospectivo. Fisioterapia e Pesquisa 19(3): 248–255.

7. da Luz CM, Deitos J, Siqueira TC, Palú M, Heck APF (2017) Management of axillary web syndrome after breast cancer: evidence-based practice. Revista Brasileira De Ginecologia E Obstetrícia/RBGO Gynecol Obstetr 39(11):632–639.

8. Hayes SC, Johansson K, Stout NL, Prosnitz R, Armer JM, Gabram S, Schmitz KH (2012) Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care. Cancer 118(S8): 2237–2249.

9. Schmitz KH, Speck RM, Rye SA, DiSipio T, Hayes SC (2012) Prevalence of breast cancer treatment sequelae over 6 years of follow-up: the pulling through study. Cancer 118(S8): 2217–2225.

10. Shamley D, Lascurain-Aguirrebeña I, Oskrochi R, Srinaganathan R (2012) Shoulder morbidity after treatment for breast cancer is bilateral and greater after mastectomy. Acta Oncol 51(8): 1045–1053.

11. Lacomba MT, Del Moral OM, Zazo JLC, Sánchez MJY, Ferrandez JC, Goni AZ (2009) Axillary web syndrome after axillary dissection in breast cancer: a prospective study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117(3): 625–630.

12. Nesvold IL, Dahl AA, Løkkevik E, Marit Mengshoel A, Fosså SD (2008) Arm and shoulder morbidity in breast cancer patients after
breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy. Acta Oncol 47(5): 835–842.

13. Fangel LMV, Panobianco MS, Kebbe LM, Almeida AM, Gozzo TO (2013) Qualify of life and daily activities performance after breast cancer treatment. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem 26(1):
93–100.

14. Rietman JS, Dijkstra PU, Hoekstra HJ, Eisma WH, Szabo BG, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB (2003) Late morbidity after treatment of breast cancer in relation to daily activities and quality of life: a systematic review. Euro J Surg Oncol (EJSO) 29(3): 229–238.

15. Costa WA, Eleutério J Jr, Giraldo PC, Gonçalves AK (2017) Quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 63(7):
583–589.

16. Hidding JT, Beurskens CH, van der Wees PJ et al (2014) Treatment related impairments in arm and shoulder in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. PLoS One 9(5):e96748

17. Hayes SC, Johansson K, Stout NL, Prosnitz R, Armer JM, Gabram S, Schmitz KH (2012)
Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care. Cancer 118(S8): 2237–2249.

18. Kootstra JJ, Dijkstra PU, Rietman H, de Vries J, Baas P, Geertzen JHB, Hoekstra HJ,
Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM (2013) A longitudinal study of shoulder and arm morbidity in breast cancer survivors 7 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection. Breast Cancer Res Treat 139(1):125–134.

19. Levy EW, Pfalzer LA, Danoff J, Springer BA, McGarvey C, Shieh CY, Morehead-Gee A, Gerber LH, Stout NL (2012) Predictors of functional shoulder recovery at 1 and 12 months after breast cancer surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134(1):
315–324.

20. Orfale AG, Araujo PMPD, Ferraz MB, Natour J (2005) Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural adaptation and evaluation of the reliability of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire. Braz J Med Biol Res 38(2): 293–302.

21. Harrington S, Michener LA, Kendig T, Miale S, George SZ (2014) Patient-reported upper extremity outcome measures used in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95(1):153–162.

22. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C (2001) Measuring the whole or the parts?: validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 14(2): 128–142.

23. Thomas-Maclean RL, Hack T, Kwan W et al (2008) Arm morbidity and disability after breast cancer: new directions for care. Oncol Nurse Forum 35(1): 65–71.

24. Miller AJ, Bruna J, Beninson J, Miller AJ
(1999) A universally applicable clinical
classification of lymphedema. Angiology 50(3):
189–192.

25. Executive Committee of the International Society of Lymphology (2020). The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Limphology 53(1): 3–19.

26. Hoppenfeld S (1999) Physical examination of the spine and extremities: international edition 1. Pearson International Edition.

27. Macedo FO, Bergmann A, Koifman RJ, Torres DM, Costa RM, da Silva IF (2018) Axillary surgery in breast cancer: acute postoperative complications in a hospital cohort of women of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mastol (Impr) 28(2): 80–86.

28. de Almeida Rizzi SKL, Haddad CAS, Giron PS, Pinheiro TL, Nazário ACP, Facina G (2016) Winged scapula incidence and upper limb morbidity after surgery for breast cancer with axillary dissection. Support Care Cancer 24(6): 2707–2715.

29. Bell-Krotoski JA (2002) Sensibility testing with the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity.

30. Jung BF, Ahrendt GM, Oaklander AL, Dworkin RH (2003) Neuropathic pain following breast cancer surgery: proposed classification and research update. Pain 104(1):1–13.

31. Rose LF, Wu JC, Carlsson AH, Tucker DI, Leung KP, Chan RK (2015) Recipient wound bed characteristics affect scarring and skin graft contraction. Wound Repair Regen 23(2):287–296.

32. World Health Organization. (1995). Physical status: the use of and interpretation of anthropometry, report of a WHO expert committee.

De Groef A, Van Kampen M, Tieto E et al (2016) Arm lymphoedema and upper limb impairments in sentinel node-negative breast cancer patients: a one year follow-up study. Breast 29: 102–108.