Atilla Soran1, Ebru Menekse2, Mark Girgis2, Lori DeGore2, Ronald Johnson2. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket St, Ste 2601, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. asoran@upmc.edu. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket St, Ste 2601, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early detection and timely intervention demonstrate the greatest promise of reducing the incidence of late-stage lymphedema in breast cancer patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). A nomogram was developed for predicting the risk of lymphedema (LE) in patients with ALND. This study's aim was to test the early postoperative prediction model for the diagnosis of clinical and subclinical LE after ALND. METHODS: Patients requiring ALND were identified preoperatively through our LE program database. Measurements using metered tape with bioimpedance spectroscopy (L-Dex U400) were obtained preoperatively (n = 180) and at 3-6-month intervals postoperatively. The 5-year probability of LE after ALND was calculated using the Cleveland Clinic Risk Calculator. The discrimination of the nomogram was assessed by calculating the area under (AUC) the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: LE was present in 36.1% (n = 65) of 180 patients with ALND. Of these 65 patients, 22 (12.2%) had clinical LE and 43 (23.9%) had subclinical LE. Statistical analyses showed significant differences in BMI and receipt of radiotherapy between patients with and without LE (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively). AUC was 0.601, 0.614, and 0.600 for the nomogram using any LE, clinical LE, and subclinical LE patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The recently created prediction model for the diagnosis of LE in ALND is not accurate in predicting who will develop clinical or subclinical LE. Periodic monitoring of women with ALND is the most effective method to aid in reducing clinical LE incidence through early detection and timely intervention of LE.
PURPOSE: Early detection and timely intervention demonstrate the greatest promise of reducing the incidence of late-stage lymphedema in breast cancerpatients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). A nomogram was developed for predicting the risk of lymphedema (LE) in patients with ALND. This study's aim was to test the early postoperative prediction model for the diagnosis of clinical and subclinical LE after ALND. METHODS:Patients requiring ALND were identified preoperatively through our LE program database. Measurements using metered tape with bioimpedance spectroscopy (L-Dex U400) were obtained preoperatively (n = 180) and at 3-6-month intervals postoperatively. The 5-year probability of LE after ALND was calculated using the Cleveland Clinic Risk Calculator. The discrimination of the nomogram was assessed by calculating the area under (AUC) the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: LE was present in 36.1% (n = 65) of 180 patients with ALND. Of these 65 patients, 22 (12.2%) had clinical LE and 43 (23.9%) had subclinical LE. Statistical analyses showed significant differences in BMI and receipt of radiotherapy between patients with and without LE (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively). AUC was 0.601, 0.614, and 0.600 for the nomogram using any LE, clinical LE, and subclinical LE patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The recently created prediction model for the diagnosis of LE in ALND is not accurate in predicting who will develop clinical or subclinical LE. Periodic monitoring of women with ALND is the most effective method to aid in reducing clinical LE incidence through early detection and timely intervention of LE.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bioimpedance spectroscopy; Early intervention; Lymphedema; Nomogram
Authors: Atilla Soran; Gina D'Angelo; Mirsada Begovic; Figen Ardic; Ali Harlak; H Samuel Wieand; Victor G Vogel; Ronald R Johnson Journal: Breast J Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Atilla Soran; Tolga Ozmen; Kandace P McGuire; Emilia J Diego; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Marguerite Bonaventura; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lori DeGore; Ronald Johnson Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.589
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: 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: Chirag Shah; April Zambelli-Weiner; Nicole Delgado; Ashley Sier; Robert Bauserman; Jerrod Nelms Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 4.872