Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 89, Issue 3, pp 221–226

Comparison of methods to diagnose lymphoedema among breast cancer survivors: 6-month follow-up

Report

Summary

One of the more problematic and dreaded complications of breast cancer is lymphoedema. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of lymphoedema 6-months following breast cancer treatment and to examine potential risk factors among a population-based sample of women residing in South-East Queensland (n=176). Women were defined as having lymphoedema if the difference between the sum of arm circumferences (SOAC) of the treated and untreated sides was >5 cm (prevalence=11.9%) or >10% (prevalence=0.6%), their multi- frequency bioelectrical impedance (MFBIA) score was ≥3 standard deviations above the reference impedance score (prevalence=11.4%), or they reported ‘yes’ when asked if arm swelling had been present in the previous 6 months (prevalence=27.8%). Of those with lymphoedema defined by MFBIA, only 35% were detected using the SOAC method (difference > 5 cm), while 65% were identified via the self-report method (i.e., respective sensitivities). Specificities for SOAC (difference > 5 cm) and self-report were 88.5% and 76.9%, respectively. When examining associations between presence of lymphoedema and a range of characteristics, findings also varied depending on the method used to assess lymphoedema. Nevertheless, one of the more novel and significant findings was that being treated on the non-dominant, compared to dominant, side was associated with an 80% increased risk of having lymphoedema (MFBIA). Our work raises questions about the use of circumferences as the choice of measurement for lymphoedema in both research and clinical settings, and assesses MFBIA as a potential alternative.

Keywords

breast cancer lymphoedema measurement prevalence risk factors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Petrek, J, Heelan, M 1998Incidence of breast carcinoma-related lymphedemaCancer8327762781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ramos, S, O’Donnell, L, Knight, G 1999Edema volume, not timing, is the key to success in lymphedema treatmentAm J Surg178311315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Williams, A, Vadgama, A, Franks, P, Mortimer, P 2002A randomized controlled crossover study of manual lymphatic drainage therapy in women with breast cancer-related lymphoedemaEur J Cancer Care11254261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bland, K, Perczyk, R, Du, W, Rymal, C, Koppolu, P, McCrary, R, Carolin, K, Kosir, M 2003Can a practicing surgeon detect early lymphedema reliably?Am J Surg186509513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ozaslan, C, Kuru, B 2004Lymphedema after treatment of breast cancerAm J Surg1876972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornish, B, Chapman, M, Hirst, C, Mirolo, B, Bunce, I, Ward, L, Thomas, B 2001Early diagnosis of lymphedema using multiple frequency bioimpedanceLymphology34211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornish, B, Ward, L, Thomas, B, Bunce, I 1998Quantification of lymphoedema using multi-frequency bioimpedanceAppl Radiat Isot49651652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornish, B, Bunce, I, Ward, L, Jones, L, Thomas, B 1996Bioelectrical impedance for monitoring the efficacy of lymphoedema treatment programmesBreast Cancer Res Tr38169176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ward, L, Bunce, I, Cornish, B, Mirolo, B, Thomas, B, Jones, L 1992Multifrequency bioelectrical impedance augments the diagnosis and management of lymphedema in post-mastectomy patientsEur J Clin Invest22751754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ward L, Piller N, Cornish B: Single or multiple frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis for the assessment of lymphoedema? In: Proceedings of the XI International Conference on Electrical Bio-Impedance, Oslo, Norway, 2001 Google Scholar
  11. Brennan, M 1992Lymphedema following the surgical treatment of breast cancer: a focused reviewJ Pain Symptom Manage74147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kissin, M, Querci della Rovere, G, Easton, D, Westbury, G 1986Risk of lymphedema following the treatment of breast cancerBr J Surg73580584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larson, D, Weinstein, M, Goldberg, I, Silver, B, Recht, A, Cady, B, Silen, W, Harris, J 1986Edema of the arm as a function of the extent of axillary surgery in patient with stage I-II carcinoma of the breast treated with primary radiotherapyInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1215751582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Powell, S, Taghian, A, Kachnic, L, Coen, J, Asaad, S 2003Risk of lymphedema after regional nodal irradiation with breast conservation therapyInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys5512091215PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthCentre for Health ResearchAustralia
  2. 2.School of Human Movement StudiesCentre for Health ResearchAustralia
  3. 3.School of Physical and Chemical SciencesQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Queensland University of TechnologySchool of Public HealthQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations