Abstract
Purpose
Despite increasing emphasis on screening and early intervention for breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), there is marked heterogeneity in diagnostic methodology, including for volumetric measures. This retrospective study compared two volumetric modalities, perometry and simulated circumferential tape measurement (anatomic- and interval-based), for BCRL detection.
Methods
Between 2005 and 2017, 287 female patients with unilateral breast cancer were prospectively screened for BCRL by perometry and the relative volume change (RVC) formula. Circumferential measurement was performed by sampling at five anatomic landmark-based points or 4-cm intervals from pairs of perometer arm diameter measurements. Volumetric conversion was by a frustum model. The Bland–Altman method was used to compare segmental volume differences. Confusion matrix analysis was performed for each circumferential measurement technique against perometry.
Results
Median follow-up was 34.7 months over 4 postoperative visits. There was no difference in total arm volume comparing any of the circumferential measurement techniques to perometry. Landmark-based methods significantly underestimated upper arm volume (mean difference − 207 mL [− 336, − 78 mL]) and overestimated forearm volume (mean difference + 170 mL [+ 105, + 237 mL]). Landmark-based methods had greater sensitivity and specificity compared to 4-cm interval methods for detection of both RVC ≥ 10 and 5–10%. Landmark-based methods were comparable to perometry for detection of RVC ≥ 10%, but sensitivity was only 63.2–66.7% for RVC 5–10%.
Conclusions
This hypothesis-generating study suggested the superiority of anatomic landmark-based circumferential tape measurement compared to interval-based methods, while generating questions about the underestimation of upper arm volume and overestimation of forearm volume of circumferential tape measurement compared to perometry.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ALND:
-
Axillary lymph node dissection
- BCRL:
-
Breast cancer-related lymphedema
- BIS:
-
Bioimpedance spectroscopy
- BMI:
-
Body mass index
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- NLN:
-
National Lymphedema Network
- NPV:
-
Negative predictive value
- PBI:
-
Partial breast irradiation
- PPV:
-
Positive predictive value
- RVC:
-
Relative volume change
- RLNR:
-
Regional lymph node radiation
- SLNB:
-
Sentinel lymph node biopsy
- SN:
-
Sensitivity
- SP:
-
Specificity
References
Smith BD, Jiang J, McLaughlin SS et al (2011) Improvement in breast cancer outcomes over time: are older women missing out? J Clin Oncol 29:4647–4653. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.35.8408
Jammallo LS, Miller CL, Horick NK et al (2014) Factors associated with fear of lymphedema after treatment for breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 41:473–483. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.473-483
Taghian NR, Miller CL, Jammallo LS et al (2014) Lymphedema following breast cancer treatment and impact on quality of life: a review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 92:227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.06.004
Khan F, Amatya B, Pallant JF, Rajapaksa I (2012) Factors associated with long-term functional outcomes and psychological sequelae in women after breast cancer. Breast 21:314–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.01.013
Chachaj A, Malyszczak K, Pyszel K et al (2010) Physical and psychological impairments of women with upper limb lymphedema following breast cancer treatment. Psychooncology 19:299–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1573
Cheville AL, McGarvey CL, Petrek JA et al (2003) The grading of lymphedema in oncology clinical trials. Semin Radiat Oncol 13:214–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4296(03)00038-9
Armer JM, Radina ME, Porock D, Culbertson SD (2003) Predicting breast cancer-related lymphedema using self-reported symptoms. Nurs Res 52:370–379
Ridner SH (2005) Quality of life and a symptom cluster associated with breast cancer treatment-related lymphedema. Support Care Cancer 13:904–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0810-y
Basta MN, Fox JP, Kanchwala SK et al (2016) Complicated breast cancer-related lymphedema: evaluating health care resource utilization and associated costs of management. Am J Surg 211:133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.06.015
Armer JM, Stewart BR (2010) Post-breast cancer lymphedema: incidence increases from 12 to 30 to 60 months. Lymphology 43:118–127. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1249098.Sleep
DiSipio T, Rye S, Newman B, Hayes S (2013) Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 14:500–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70076-7
McLaughlin SA, Staley AC, Vicini F et al (2017) Considerations for clinicians in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: recommendations from a multidisciplinary expert ASBrS panel: part 1: definitions, assessments, education, and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol 24:2818–2826. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5982-4
Shah C, Arthur DW, Wazer D et al (2016) The impact of early detection and intervention of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review. Cancer Med 5:1154–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.691
Clinical Resource Efficacy Support Team (2008) Guidelines for the diagnosis, assessment and management of lymphoedema. Available at: http://www.gain-ni.org/images/Uploads/Guidelines/CrestGuidelines.pdf
NLN Medical Advisory Committee (2011) Position statement of the National Lymphedema Network: screening and measurement for early detection of breast cancer-related lymphedema. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0941-3
Avon Foundation (2011) Recent advances in breast cancer-related lymphedema detection and treatment. 4/11 update. Available at: http://www.avonfoundation.org/assets/le-meeting/le-white-paper.pdf
Levenhagen K, Davies C, Perdomo M et al (2017) Diagnosis of upper quadrant lymphedema secondary to cancer: clinical practice guideline from the oncology section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther 97:729–745
Sun F, Skolny MN, Swaroop MN et al (2016) The need for preoperative baseline arm measurement to accurately quantify breast cancer-related lymphedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat 157:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3821-0
NLN Medical Advisory Committee (2012) Position statement of the National Lymphedema Network TOPIC : summary of lymphedema risk reduction practices. 1–2. Available at: http://lymphnet.org/pdfDocs/nlntreatment.pdf
ISL (2013) The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2013 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology 46:1–11
Tierney S, Aslam M, Rennie K, Grace P (1996) Infrared optoelectronic volumetry, the ideal way to measure limb volume. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 12:412–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1078-5884(96)80005-0
Moffatt C, Doherty D, Morgan P (2006) International consensus: best practices for the management of lymphoedema. Int Lymphoedema Fram 4–7. Available at: https://www.lympho.org/portfolio/best-practice-for-the-management-of-lymphoedema/
Ancukiewicz M, Miller CL, Skolny MN et al (2012) Comparison of relative versus absolute arm size change as criteria for quantifying breast cancer-related lymphedema: the flaws in current studies and need for universal methodology. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2111-8
Brunelle C, Skolny M, Ferguson C et al (2015) Establishing and sustaining a prospective screening program for breast cancer-related lymphedema at the massachusetts general hospital: lessons learned. J Pers Med 5:153–164. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5020153
Brunelle CL, Swaroop MN, Skolny MN et al (2018) Hand edema in patients at risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL): Health professionals should take notice. Phys Ther. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy007
Ancukiewicz M, Russell T, Otoole J et al (2011) Standardized method for quantification of developing lymphedema in patients treated for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79:1436–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.01.001
Specht MC, Miller CL, Russell T et al (2013) Defining a threshold for intervention in breast cancer-related lymphedema: what level of arm volume increase predicts progression? Breast Cancer Res Treat 140:485–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2655-2
Brunelle CL, Swaroop MN, Asdourian M et al (2017) Evaluation of methods of upper extremity measurement for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a comparison of perometry, circumferential tape measurement, and bioimpedance spectroscopy. In: National Lymphedema Network International Conference
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (2016) A prospective surveillance program for assessment and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema after axillary lymph node dissection. Bethesda Natl Libr Med (US) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02743858
Meir Medical Center (2012) The validity and reliability of self measurement of upper limb volume in treating lymphedema in breast cancer patients. Bethesda Natl Libr Med (US) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01225783
Abant Izzet Baysal University (2017) early detection of lymphedema with bio-electrical impedance analysis in patients after breast cancer surgery. Bethesda Natl Libr Med (US) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02748746
Mukaka MM (2012) Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24:69–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.01.020
Stout NL, Pfalzer L, Levy E et al (2011) Segmental limb volume change as a predictor of the onset of lymphedema in women with early breast cancer. PM R 3:1098–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.07.021
Ridner SH, Montgomery LD, Hepworth JT et al (2007) Comparison of upper limb volume measurement techniques and arm symptoms between healthy volunteers and individuals with known lymphedema. Lymphology 40:35–46
Armer JM, Stewart BR (2005) A comparison of four diagnostic criteria for lymphedema in a post-breast cancer population. Lymphat Res Biol 3:208–217
Meek AG (1998) Breast radiotherapy and lymphedema. Cancer 83:2788–2797
Ribeiro Pereira ACP, Koifman RJ, Bergmann A (2017) Incidence and risk factors of lymphedema after breast cancer treatment: 10 years of follow-up. Breast 36:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.09.006
Pereira De Godoy JM, De Fatima Guerreiro Godoy M (2013) Evaluation of a new approach to the treatment of lymphedema resulting from breast cancer therapy. Eur J Intern Med 24:59–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2012.08.008
Bevilacqua JLB, Kattan MW, Changhong Y et al (2012) Nomograms for predicting the risk of arm lymphedema after axillary dissection in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2580–2589. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2290-x
Svensson BJ, Dylke ES, Ward LC, Kilbreath SL (2017) Segmental bioimpedance informs diagnosis of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol 15:349–355
Czerniec SA, Ward LC, Meerkin JD, Kilbreath SL (2015) Assessment of segmental arm soft tissue composition in breast cancer-related lymphedema: a pilot study using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioimpedance spectroscopy. Lymphat Res Biol 13:33–39
Yang EJ, Kim SY, Lee WH et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of clinical measures considering segmental tissue composition and volume changes of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol 00:lrb.2017.0047. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2017.0047
Adriaenssens N, Buyl R, Lievens P et al (2013) Comparative study between mobile infrared optoelectronic volumetry with a Perometer and two commonly used methods for the evaluation of arm volume in patients with breast cancer related lymphedema of the arm. Lymphology 46:132–143
Katz-Leurer M, Bracha J (2012) Test-retest reliability of arm volume measurement in women with breast cancer- related lymphoedema. J Lymphoedema 7:8–12
Tidhar D, Armer J, Deutscher D et al (2015) Measurement issues in anthropometric measures of limb volume change in persons at risk for and living with lymphedema: a reliability study. J Pers Med 5:341–353. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5040341
Ostby PL, Armer JM, Dale PS et al (2014) Surveillance recommendations in reducing risk of and optimally managing breast cancer-related lymphedema. J Pers Med 4:424–447. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm4030424
Acknowledgements
The project was supported by Award Number R01CA139118 (AG Taghian) and Award Number P50CA08393 (AG Taghian) from the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health. This program is supported by the Adele McKinnon Research Fund for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
AG Taghian has been loaned equipment from ImpediMed for use in an investigator initiated clinical trial. ImpediMed has was not involved in the conception or reporting of our research activities. AG Taghian has been a consultant for VisionRT (image-guidance radiation oncology). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, F., Hall, A., Tighe, M.P. et al. Perometry versus simulated circumferential tape measurement for the detection of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat 172, 83–91 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4902-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4902-z