Table 2.

Patient-reported outcomes/quality of life analyses

PRO/QOL instruments	Difference with vs without lymphedema diagnosis (99% CI)*	Padjustedvalue **
FACT-G	−2.8 (−5.7 ~ 0.1)	0.08
IES	2.4 (−0.1 ~ 5.0)	0.09
Body Image subscale	−0.4 (−1.0 ~ 0.1)	0.29
Sexual and Vaginal subscale	−0.5 (−1.3 ~ 0.3)	0.56
LEFS	−5.7 (−9.3 ~ −2.3)	<0.001
Social Well-Being	−0.4 (−1.3 ~ 0.5)	0.83
	Difference between GCLQ total score increment ≥4 vs <4 (99% CI)*	Padjusted**
FACT-G	−4.4 (−6.3 ~ −2.5)	<0.001
IES	3.0 (1.2 ~ 4.8)	<0.001
Body Image subscale	−0.5 (−0.8~ −0.1)	<0.001
Sexual and Vaginal subscale	−0.8 (−1.3 ~ −0.3)	<0.001
LEFS	−7.3 (−9.6 ~ −5.0)	<0.001
Social Well-Being	−0.5 (−1.1 ~ 0.1)	0.27
	Difference between leg volume increment ≥10% vs <10% (99% CI)*	Padjusted**
FACT-G	−0.5 (− 2.4 ~ 1.3)	0.98
IES	−0.5 (− 2.2~ 1.2)	0.98
Body Image subscale	−0.3 (−0.7 ~ 0.04)	0.12
Sexual and Vaginal subscale	−0.1 (−0.6 ~ 0.3)	0.96
LEFS	−1.1 (−3.4 ~ 1.2)	0.76
Social Well-Being	0.1 (−0.5 ~ 0.8)	0.99

QOL, quality of life; PRO, patient-reported outcome; FACT-G, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; IES, Impact of Event Scale; LEFS, Lower Extremity Functional Scale

^*differences in QOL/PRO scores estimated from a fitted linear mixed model adjusting for baseline score, disease sites, and assessment time when patients had leg volume change increment ≥10% from baseline.

^**: P_adjusted = 1-(1-P_unadjusted)⁶.