The LYMPH trial: comparing microsurgical with conservative treatment for chronic breast cancer-associated lymphoedema – study protocol of a pragmatic randomised international multicentre superiority trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Up to one-fifth of breast cancer survivors will develop chronic breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL). To date, complex physical decongestion therapy (CDT) is the gold standard of treatment. However, it is mainly symptomatic and often ineffective in preventing BCRL progression. Lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularised lymph node transfer (VLNT) are microsurgical techniques that aim to restore lymphatic drainage. This international randomised trial aims to evaluate advantages of microsurgical interventions plus CDT versus CDT alone for BCRL treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The effectiveness of LVA and/or VLNT in combination with CDT, which may be combined with liposuction, versus CDT alone will be evaluated in routine practice across the globe. Patients with BCRL will be randomly allocated to either surgical or conservative therapy. The primary end point of this trial is the patient-reported quality of life (QoL) outcome 'lymphoedema-specific QoL', which will be assessed 15 months after randomisation. Secondary end points are further patient-reported outcomes (PROs), arm volume measurements, economic evaluations and imaging at different time points. A long-term follow-up will be conducted up to 10 years after randomisation. A total of 280 patients will be recruited in over 20 sites worldwide. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Council for Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) E6 guideline. Ethical approval has been obtained by the lead ethics committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2023-00733, 22 May 2023). Ethical approval from local authorities will be sought for all participating sites. Regardless of outcomes, the findings will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Metadata detailing the dataset's type, size and content will be made available, along with the full study protocol and case report forms, in public repositories in compliance with the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse principles. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05890677.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".