Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 5/2011

01-05-2011 | Original Article

Segmental measurement of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema using perometry and bioimpedance spectroscopy

Authors: Sharon A. Czerniec, Leigh C. Ward, Mi-Joung Lee, Kathryn M. Refshauge, Jane Beith, Sharon L. Kilbreath

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 5/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) could detect localised lymphoedema of the arm and to compare BIS measurements with equivalent measures of limb volume by perometry.

Methods

Women with mild to severe upper limb lymphoedema (n = 29) and women with no history of lymphoedema (n = 11) participated. Commencing at the ulnar styloid of the wrist, 4 × 10 cm segment measurements were made of each arm using both BIS and perometry.

Results

Average BIS inter-limb ratios for the total arm and each arm segment were higher than comparable perometry measures in women with lymphoedema, but similar to perometry measures for women without lymphoedema. Limits of agreement analysis showed that the mean difference between methods varied according to segment measured, ranging from 8.5% for the uppermost segment of the arm to 16.6% for the forearm segment just below the elbow. For all limb segments, there was a positive bias towards BIS measurements, which increased as lymphoedema severity increased.

Conclusion

BIS can be used for localised measurement of lymphoedema. Because it is specific to extracellular fluid, BIS is more sensitive to localised lymphoedema than perometry.
Literature
1.
Lee TS, Kilbreath SL, Sullivan G, Refshauge K, Beith J, Harris L (2009) Factors that affect intention to avoid strenuous arm activity after breast cancer surgery. Oncol Nurs Forum 36:454–462PubMedCrossRef
2.
Hayes S, Janda M, Cornish B, Battistutta D, Newman B (2008) Lymphedema after breast cancer: incidence, risk factors, and effect on upper body function. Am J Clin Oncol 26:3536–3542CrossRef
3.
Stanton A, Modi S, Mellor R, Levick J, Mortimer P (2009) Recent advances in breast cancer-related lymphedema of the arm: lymphatic pump failure and predisposing factors. Lymphat Res Biol 7:29–45PubMedCrossRef
4.
Stanton AW, Mellor RH, Cook GJ, Svensson WE, Peters AM, Levick JR, Mortimer PS (2003) Impairment of lymph drainage in subfascial compartment of forearm in breast cancer-related lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol 1:121–132PubMedCrossRef
5.
Stanton AWB, Svensson WE, Mellor RH, Peters AM, Levick JR, Mortimer PS (2001) Differences in lymph drainage between swollen and non-swollen regions in arms with breast-cancer-related lymphoedema. Clin Sci 101:131–140PubMedCrossRef
6.
Modi S, Stanton A, Mellor R, Peters A, Levick J, Mortimer P (2005) Regional distribution of epifascial swelling and epifascial lymph drainage rate constants in breast cancer-related lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol 3:3–15PubMedCrossRef
7.
Deltombe T, Jamart J, Recloux S, Legrand C, Vanderbroek N, Theys S, Hanson P (2007) Reliability and limits of agreement of circumferential, water displacement and optoelectronic volumetry in the measurement of upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology 40:26–34PubMed
8.
Stout Gergich N, Pfalzer L, McGarvey C, Springer B, Gerber L, Soballe P (2008) Preoperative assessment enables the early diagnosis and successful treatment of lymphedema. Cancer 112:2809–2819PubMedCrossRef
9.
Tewari N, Gill PG, Bochner MA, Kollias J (2008) Comparison of volume displacement versus circumference measurements for lymphoedema: implications for the SNAC trial. ANZ J Surg 78:889–893PubMedCrossRef
10.
Stanton AW, Badger C, Sitzia J, Stanton AW, Badger C, Sitzia J (2000) Non-invasive assessment of the lymphedematous limb. Lymphology 33:122–135PubMed
11.
Stanton AW, Northfield JW, Holroyd B, Mortimer PS, Levick JR, Stanton AW, Northfield JW, Holroyd B, Mortimer PS, Levick JR (1997) Validation of an optoelectronic limb volumeter (perometer). Lymphology 30:77–97PubMed
12.
Hayes S, Janda M, Cornish B, Battistutta D, Newman B (2008) Lymphedema secondary to breast cancer: how choice of measure influences diagnosis, prevalence, and identifiable risk factors. Lymphology 41:18–28PubMed
13.
14.
Cornish BH, Bunce IH, Ward LC, Jones LC, Thomas BJ (1996) Bioelectrical impedance for monitoring the efficacy of lymphoedema treatment programmes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 38:169–176PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cornish BH, Chapman M, Hirst C, Mirolo B, Bunce IH, Ward LC, Thomas BJ (2001) Early diagnosis of lymphedema using multiple frequency bioimpedance. Lymphology 34:2–11PubMed
16.
Ward LC, Kilbreath SL, Cornish BH (2008) Bioelectrical impedance analysis for early detection of lymphedema. In: Lymphedema diagnosis and therapy 4th Ed. Edited by Weissleder H and Schuchhardt C. Bonn: Viavital: 503–517
17.
Czerniec S, Ward LC, Refshauge K, Beith J, Lee M, York S, Kilbreath SL (2010) Assessment of breast cancer related arm lymphedema—comparison of physical measurement methods and self-report. Cancer Invest 28:54–62PubMedCrossRef
18.
Ward LC, Czerniec SA, Kilbreath SL (2009) Quantitative bioimpedance spectroscopy for the assessment of lymphoedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:541–547PubMedCrossRef
19.
York S, Ward L, Czerniec S, Lee M, Refshauge K, Kilbreath S (2009) Single frequency versus bioimpedance spectroscopy in the assessment of lymphoedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:177–182PubMedCrossRef
20.
Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:2255–2268CrossRef
21.
Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310PubMed
22.
Armer JM, Stewart BR (2005) A comparison of four diagnostic criteria for lymphedema in a post-breast cancer population. Lymphat Res Biol 3:208–217PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ward L (2006) Bioelectrical impedance analysis: proven utility in lymphedema risk assessment and therapeutic monitoring. Lymphat Res Biol 4:51–56PubMedCrossRef
24.
Ward LC, Czerniec S, Kilbreath SL (2009) Operational equivalence of bioimpedance indices and perometry for the assessment of unilateral arm lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol 7:81–85PubMedCrossRef
25.
Rockson SG (2006) Addressing the unmet needs in lymphedema risk management. Lymphat Res Biol 4:41–46CrossRef
26.
Warren AG, Brorson H, Borud LJ, Slavin AS (2007) Lymphedema: a comprehensive review. Ann Plast Surg 59:464–472PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ramos S, O'Donnell L, Knight G (1999) Edema volume, not timing, is the key to success in lymphedema treatment. Am J Surg 178:311–315PubMedCrossRef
28.
Cornish BH, Chapman M, Thomas BJ, Ward LC, Bunce IH, Hirst C (2000) Early diagnosis of lymphedema in postsurgery breast cancer patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci 904:571–575PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Segmental measurement of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema using perometry and bioimpedance spectroscopy
Authors
Sharon A. Czerniec
Leigh C. Ward
Mi-Joung Lee
Kathryn M. Refshauge
Jane Beith
Sharon L. Kilbreath
Publication date
01-05-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0896-8

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Supportive Care in Cancer 5/2011 Go to the issue

Original Article

Are nurses and physicians able to assess which strategies adolescents recently diagnosed with cancer use to cope with disease- and treatment-related distress?

Original Article

Psychometric properties of the Perform Questionnaire: a brief scale for assessing patient perceptions of fatigue in cancer

Letter to the Editor

Response to letter to the editor titled: A matter of taste: making the distinction between taste and flavor is essential for improving management of dysgeusia

Original Article

Antiemetic activity of megestrol acetate in patients receiving chemotherapy

Original Article

Determinants of quality of life in patients with advanced cancer

Original Article

Psychometric testing of the Chinese-version cancer needs questionnaire short form head and neck cancer-specific version in oral cavity cancer patients
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits