## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **T0** & **T1** & **T2** & **T0-T1** & **T1-T2** & **T0-T2** \\  & & & & _p-Value_ & _p-Value_ & _p-Value_ \\ \hline BCRL volume (cm\({}^{3}\)) & & & & & \\ Hand & 348.1 \(\pm\) 99.0 & 293.6 \(\pm\) 95.2 & 298.6 \(\pm\) 80.8 & 0.003 \({}^{*}\) & \textgreater{}0.999 & 0.007 \({}^{*}\) \\ Forearm & 1654.0 \(\pm\) 503.8 & 1532.8 \(\pm\) 433.7 & 1584.7 \(\pm\) 461.8 & 0.035 \({}^{*}\) & 0.999 & 0.178 \\ Arm & 1879.3 \(\pm\) 348.9 & 1695.5 \(\pm\) 278.9 & 1767.6 \(\pm\) 337.4 & 0.014 \({}^{*}\) & 0.472 & 0.472 \\ Total & 3881.4 \(\pm\) 886.9 & 3521.9 \(\pm\) 759.2 & 3650.9 \(\pm\) 835.5 & 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 0.472 & 0.102 \\ LLIS & 38.9 \(\pm\) 10.1 & 34.7 \(\pm\) 8.1 & 35.1 \(\pm\) 12.6 & \textgreater{}0.999 & \textgreater{}0.999 & \textgreater{}0.999 \\ EORTC QOL-C30 & & & & & & \\ Function & 86.9 \(\pm\) 7.2 & 87.4 \(\pm\) 7.5 & 83.5 \(\pm\) 9.0 & \textgreater{}0.999 & 0.178 & \textgreater{}0.999 \\ Symptom & 13.7 \(\pm\) 6.7 & 12.3 \(\pm\) 4.0 & 15.4 \(\pm\) 9.3 & \textgreater{}0.999 & 0.716 & \textgreater{}0.999 \\ Global health & 40.7 \(\pm\) 6.5 & 73.2 \(\pm\) 16.6 & 31.5 \(\pm\) 10.0 & 0.716 & \textgreater{}0.999 & 0.297 \\ IC application time (sec) & 245.9 \(\pm\) 93.0 & 149.7 \(\pm\) 59.8 & 131.2\(\pm\) 42.4 & 0.035 \({}^{*}\) & \textgreater{}0.999 & 0.003 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Continuous variables are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard deviations. One-way ANOVA analysis was performed as statistical test.
* \(p\) = \textless{}0.05 for significance. Abbreviations: T0 = baseline; T1 = at the end of 2-week treatment; T2 = at the 1-month follow-up visit. BCRL = breast cancer related lymphedema; L1 IS = Lymphedema Life Impact Scale; EORTC QOL-C30 = European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire; IC, inelastic compression.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Differences in outcome measures according to the study time-points. Considering the small sample size, this pilot study was underpowered to draft any strong conclusion about the effectiveness of IC in upper limb BCRL volume reduction and these preliminary data, although promising, must be confirmed by further studies with larger cohorts. Lastly, our findings might also suggest intriguing implications in the direct and indirect sanitary costs of BCRL. Previous studies reported that CDT is an expensive intervention that might be carried out only in specialized centers, with an estimated cost of therapy for a single patient that could exceed 2500 EUR per year [34]. Promoting self-treatment, reducing the overall hospital length of stay, device consumption, and health personnel employment could positively impact the overall cost of BCRL therapy. However, at present, a cost analysis is not possible thus, it should be performed in the future on larger samples. This study was not free from limitations: first, the small sample size that could not lead to any strong conclusions regarding IC efficacy in upper limb volume reduction; second, the absence of a control group, which hinder any true comparison between IC and the MLB; third, the lack of data on muscle strength and functional performance in these patients.