Title |
A Prospective Validation Study of Bioimpedance with Volume Displacement in Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients at Risk for Lymphedema
|
---|---|
Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, June 2015
|
DOI | 10.1245/s10434-015-4683-0 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Andrea V. Barrio, Anne Eaton, Thomas G. Frazier |
Abstract |
Although volume displacement (VD) is considered the gold standard for diagnosing breast cancer-related lymphedema, it is inconvenient. We compared bioimpedance (L-Dex) and VD measurements in a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients at risk for lymphedema. Between 2010 and 2014, a total of 223 breast cancer patients were enrolled. Following exclusions (n = 37), 186 received baseline VD and L-Dex; follow-up measurements were performed at 3-6 months intervals for 3 years. At each visit, patients fitted into one of three categories: normal (normal VD and L-Dex); abnormal L-Dex (L-Dex > 10 or increase in 10 from baseline and normal VD); or lymphedema (relative arm volume difference of >10 % by VD ± abnormal L-Dex). Change in L-Dex was plotted against change in VD; correlation was assessed using the Pearson correlation. At a median follow-up of 18.2 months, 152 patients were normal, 25 had an abnormal L-Dex, and 9 developed lymphedema without a prior L-Dex abnormality. Of the 25 abnormal L-Dex patients, 4 progressed to lymphedema, for a total of 13 patients with lymphedema. Evaluating all time points, 186 patients had 829 follow-up measurements. Sensitivity and specificity of L-Dex compared with VD were 75 and 93 %, respectively. There was no correlation between change in VD and change in L-Dex at 3 months (r = 0.31) or 6 months (r = 0.21). VD and bioimpedance demonstrated poor correlation with inconsistent overlap of measurements considered abnormal. Of patients with an abnormal L-Dex, few progressed to lymphedema; most patients with lymphedema did not have a prior L-Dex abnormality. Further studies are needed to understand the clinical significance of bioimpedance. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
Researcher | 6 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
Other | 7 | 16% |
Unknown | 13 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 33% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
Engineering | 3 | 7% |
Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 7% |
Unknown | 15 | 35% |