Evelyn S Qin1, Mindy J Bowen1, Wei F Chen2. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. Electronic address: wei-chen@uiowa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) is used by healthcare specialists to diagnose lymphedema. BIS measures limb fluid content by assessing tissue resistance to the flow of electric current. However, there is debate regarding the validity of BIS in diagnosing early lymphedema. Indocyanine green (ICG) lymphography has been established as the most accurate diagnostic modality to date for lymphedema diagnosis. In this retrospective study, we test the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of BIS in diagnosing lymphedema by referencing its results with ICG lymphography. METHODS: Patients presented to the University of Iowa Lymphedema Center from 2015 to 2017 were evaluated with a standardized protocol that included history and physical examination, a validated lymphedema-specific quality-of-life assessment (LYMQOL), circumference -measurement-based index, BIS, and ICG lymphography. Diagnostic accuracy of BIS was assessed using ICG lymphography as a reference test. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients had positive ICG lymphography results, which confirmed the diagnosis of lymphedema. ICG lymphographic findings consistently correlated with clinical examination, LYMQOL evaluation, and lymphedema indices. By contrast, BIS demonstrated a false-negative rate of 36% - 21 out of 58 patients had normal BIS readings, but a positive ICG lymphography result. The 21 false-negative results occurred in patients with early-stage disease. Sensitivity and specificity for BIS were 0.64 and 1, respectively. CONCLUSION: BIS carries an excessively high rate of false-negative results to be dependably used as a diagnostic modality for lymphedema. ICG lymphography highly correlates with other tracking modalities, and it remains the most reliable tool for diagnosing lymphedema.
BACKGROUND: Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) is used by healthcare specialists to diagnose lymphedema. BIS measures limb fluid content by assessing tissue resistance to the flow of electric current. However, there is debate regarding the validity of BIS in diagnosing early lymphedema. Indocyanine green (ICG) lymphography has been established as the most accurate diagnostic modality to date for lymphedema diagnosis. In this retrospective study, we test the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of BIS in diagnosing lymphedema by referencing its results with ICG lymphography. METHODS:Patients presented to the University of Iowa Lymphedema Center from 2015 to 2017 were evaluated with a standardized protocol that included history and physical examination, a validated lymphedema-specific quality-of-life assessment (LYMQOL), circumference -measurement-based index, BIS, and ICG lymphography. Diagnostic accuracy of BIS was assessed using ICG lymphography as a reference test. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients had positive ICG lymphography results, which confirmed the diagnosis of lymphedema. ICG lymphographic findings consistently correlated with clinical examination, LYMQOL evaluation, and lymphedema indices. By contrast, BIS demonstrated a false-negative rate of 36% - 21 out of 58 patients had normal BIS readings, but a positive ICG lymphography result. The 21 false-negative results occurred in patients with early-stage disease. Sensitivity and specificity for BIS were 0.64 and 1, respectively. CONCLUSION:BIS carries an excessively high rate of false-negative results to be dependably used as a diagnostic modality for lymphedema. ICG lymphography highly correlates with other tracking modalities, and it remains the most reliable tool for diagnosing lymphedema.
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: Melissa B Aldrich; John C Rasmussen; Sarah M DeSnyder; Wendy A Woodward; Wenyaw Chan; Eva M Sevick-Muraca; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Benjamin D Smith; Michael C Stauder; Eric A Strom; George H Perkins; Karen E Hoffman; Melissa P Mitchell; Carlos H Barcenas; Lynn E Isales; Simona F Shaitelman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-07-10 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Sandra Russo; Joan L Walker; Jay W Carlson; Jeanne Carter; Leigh C Ward; Allan Covens; Edward J Tanner; Jane M Armer; Sheila Ridner; Sandi Hayes; Alphonse G Taghian; Cheryl Brunelle; Micael Lopez-Acevedo; Brittany A Davidson; Mark V Schaverien; Sharad A Ghamande; Michael Bernas; Andrea L Cheville; Kathleen J Yost; Kathryn Schmitz; Barbara Coyle; Jeannette Zucker; Danielle Enserro; Stephanie Pugh; Electra D Paskett; Leslie Ford; Worta McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Bernadette N White; Iris M Lu; LeslieAnn S Kao; J Brandon Dixon; Michael J Weiler; Nathan D Frank; Jill Binkley; Preeti Subhedar; Joel Okoli; Karen Buhariwalla; Adriana Suarez-Ligon; Sheryl G A Gabram-Mendola Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 2.754