Feasibility of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Examining a Multidimensional Intervention in Women with Gynecological Cancer at Risk of Lymphedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited knowledge on non-invasive lymphedema risk-reduction strategies for women with gynecological cancer. Understanding factors influencing the feasibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can guide future research. Our objectives are to report on the design and feasibility of a pilot RCT examining a tailored multidimensional intervention in women treated for gynecological cancer at risk of lymphedema and to explore the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention on lymphedema incidence at 12 months. In this pilot single-blinded, parallel-group, multi-centre RCT, women with newly diagnosed gynecological cancer were randomized to receive post-operative compression stockings and individualized exercise education (intervention group: IG) or education on lymphedema risk-reduction alone (control group: CG). Rates of recruitment, retention and assessment completion were recorded. Intervention safety and feasibility were tracked by monitoring adverse events and adherence. Clinical outcomes were evaluated over 12 months: presence of lymphedema, circumferential and volume measures, body composition and quality of life. Fifty-one women were recruited and 36 received the assigned intervention. Rates of recruitment and 12-month retention were 47% and 78%, respectively. Two participants experienced post-operative cellulitis, prior to intervention delivery. At three and six months post-operatively, 67% and 63% of the IG used compression ≥42 h/week, while 56% engaged in ≥150 weekly minutes of moderate-vigorous exercise. The cumulative incidence of lymphedema at 12 months was 31% in the CG and 31.9% in the IG (p = 0.88). In affected participants, lymphedema developed after a median time of 3.2 months (range, 2.7–5.9) in the CG vs. 8.8 months (range, 2.9–11.8) in the IG. Conducting research trials exploring lymphedema risk-reduction strategies in gynecological cancer is feasible but challenging. A tailored intervention of compression and exercise is safe and feasible in this population and may delay the onset of lymphedema. Further research is warranted to establish the role of these strategies in reducing the risk of lymphedema for the gynecological cancer population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".