Betty J Smoot1, Josephine F Wong, Marylin J Dodd. 1. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of California San Francisco, 94143-0736, USA. betty.smoot@ucsf.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare diagnostic accuracy of measures of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). DESIGN: Cross-sectional design comparing clinical measures with the criterion standard of previous diagnosis of BCRL. SETTING: University of California San Francisco Translational Science Clinical Research Center. PARTICIPANTS: Women older than 18 years and more than 6 months posttreatment for breast cancer (n=141; 70 with BCRL, 71 without BCRL). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operator characteristic curve, and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 141 women were categorized as having (n=70) or not having (n=71) BCRL based on past diagnosis by a health care provider, which was used as the reference standard. Analyses of ROC curves for the continuous outcomes yielded AUC of .68 to .88 (P<.001); of the physical measures bioimpedance spectroscopy yielded the highest accuracy with an AUC of .88 (95% confidence interval, .80-.96) for women whose dominant arm was the affected arm. The lowest accuracy was found using the 2-cm diagnostic cutoff score to identify previously diagnosed BCRL (AUC, .54-.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of bioimpedance spectroscopy in the assessment of existing BCRL. Refining diagnostic cutoff values may improve accuracy of diagnosis and warrant further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare diagnostic accuracy of measures of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). DESIGN: Cross-sectional design comparing clinical measures with the criterion standard of previous diagnosis of BCRL. SETTING: University of California San Francisco Translational Science Clinical Research Center. PARTICIPANTS: Women older than 18 years and more than 6 months posttreatment for breast cancer (n=141; 70 with BCRL, 71 without BCRL). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operator characteristic curve, and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 141 women were categorized as having (n=70) or not having (n=71) BCRL based on past diagnosis by a health care provider, which was used as the reference standard. Analyses of ROC curves for the continuous outcomes yielded AUC of .68 to .88 (P<.001); of the physical measures bioimpedance spectroscopy yielded the highest accuracy with an AUC of .88 (95% confidence interval, .80-.96) for women whose dominant arm was the affected arm. The lowest accuracy was found using the 2-cm diagnostic cutoff score to identify previously diagnosed BCRL (AUC, .54-.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of bioimpedance spectroscopy in the assessment of existing BCRL. Refining diagnostic cutoff values may improve accuracy of diagnosis and warrant further investigation.
Authors: Nicole L Stout Gergich; Lucinda A Pfalzer; Charles McGarvey; Barbara Springer; Lynn H Gerber; Peter Soballe Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sarah A McLaughlin; Mary J Wright; Katherine T Morris; Gladys L Giron; Michelle R Sampson; Julia P Brockway; Karen E Hurley; Elyn R Riedel; Kimberly J Van Zee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M R Fu; C M Cleland; A A Guth; M Kayal; J Haber; F Cartwright; R Kleinman; Y Kang; J Scagliola; D Axelrod Journal: Lymphology Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 1.286
Authors: Marek Ancukiewicz; Cynthia L Miller; Melissa N Skolny; Jean O'Toole; Laura E Warren; Lauren S Jammallo; Michelle C Specht; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lauren M Havens; Cheryl L Brunelle; Tessa C Gillespie; Madison Bernstein; Loryn K Bucci; Yara W Kassamani; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Mhealth Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: N Galiano-Castillo; A Ariza-García; I Cantarero-Villanueva; C Fernández-Lao; C Sánchez-Salado; M Arroyo-Morales Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Stanley G Rockson; John P Cooke; Ngan F Huang; Catarina Hadamitzky; Tatiana S Zaitseva; Magdalena Bazalova-Carter; Michael V Paukshto; Luqia Hou; Zachary Strassberg; James Ferguson; Yuka Matsuura; Rajesh Dash; Phillip C Yang; Shura Kretchetov; Peter M Vogt Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Jean O'Toole; Lauren S Jammallo; Melissa N Skolny; Cynthia L Miller; Krista Elliott; Michelle C Specht; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2013-06-16 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Bryan Spinelli; Michael J Kallan; Xiaochen Zhang; Andrea Cheville; Andrea Troxel; Joy Cohn; Lorraine Dean; Kathleen Sturgeon; Margaret Evangelista; Zi Zhang; David Ebaugh; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 3.966