Jill M Binkley1, Michael J Weiler2, Nathan Frank2, Lauren Bober3, J Brandon Dixon4, Paul W Stratford5. 1. TurningPoint Breast Cancer Rehabilitation, 8010 Roswell Road, Suite 120, Atlanta, GA 30350 (USA); and Oncology Rehabilitation Consultant, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. LymphaTech, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. TurningPoint Breast Cancer Rehabilitation, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. LymphaTech; and Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are challenges related to the accurate and efficient measurement of lymphedema in people with breast cancer. The LymphaTech 3D Imaging System (LymphaTech, Atlanta, GA, USA) is a mobile, noninvasive platform that provides limb geometry measurements. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the reliability and validity of the LymphaTech for measuring arm volume in the context of women seeking care in a specialty breast cancer rehabilitation clinic. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional reliability and convergent validity study. METHODS: People who had stage I to IV breast cancer with lymphedema or were at risk for it were included. Arm volume was measured in 66 participants using the LymphaTech and perometer methods. Test-retest reliability for a single measure, limb volume difference, and agreement between methods was analyzed for 30 participants. A method-comparison analysis was also used to assess convergent validity between methods. RESULTS: Both LymphaTech and perometer methods displayed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of ≥0.99. The standard errors of measurement for the LymphaTech and length-matched perometer measurements were nearly identical. Similar intraclass correlation coefficients (0.97) and standard errors of measurement (38.0-40.7 mL) were obtained for the between-limb volume difference for both methods. The convergent validity analyses demonstrated no systematic difference between methods. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. LymphaTech measurements included interrater variance, and perometer measurements contained intrarater variance. CONCLUSIONS: The LymphaTech had excellent test-retest reliability, and convergent validity was supported. This technology is efficient and portable and has a potential role in prospective surveillance and management of lymphedema in clinical, research, and home settings.
BACKGROUND: There are challenges related to the accurate and efficient measurement of lymphedema in people with breast cancer. The LymphaTech 3D Imaging System (LymphaTech, Atlanta, GA, USA) is a mobile, noninvasive platform that provides limb geometry measurements. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the reliability and validity of the LymphaTech for measuring arm volume in the context of women seeking care in a specialty breast cancer rehabilitation clinic. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional reliability and convergent validity study. METHODS:People who had stage I to IV breast cancer with lymphedema or were at risk for it were included. Arm volume was measured in 66 participants using the LymphaTech and perometer methods. Test-retest reliability for a single measure, limb volume difference, and agreement between methods was analyzed for 30 participants. A method-comparison analysis was also used to assess convergent validity between methods. RESULTS: Both LymphaTech and perometer methods displayed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of ≥0.99. The standard errors of measurement for the LymphaTech and length-matched perometer measurements were nearly identical. Similar intraclass correlation coefficients (0.97) and standard errors of measurement (38.0-40.7 mL) were obtained for the between-limb volume difference for both methods. The convergent validity analyses demonstrated no systematic difference between methods. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. LymphaTech measurements included interrater variance, and perometer measurements contained intrarater variance. CONCLUSIONS: The LymphaTech had excellent test-retest reliability, and convergent validity was supported. This technology is efficient and portable and has a potential role in prospective surveillance and management of lymphedema in clinical, research, and home settings.
Authors: Judy Mastick; Betty J Smoot; Steven M Paul; Kord M Kober; Bruce A Cooper; Lori K Madden; Yvette P Conley; Niharika Dixit; Marilyn J Hammer; Mei R Fu; Merisa Piper; Sarah P Cate; John Shepherd; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 2.589
Authors: Judy Mastick; Betty J Smoot; Steven M Paul; Kord M Kober; Deborah Hamolsky; Lori K Madden; Yvette P Conley; Niharika Dixit; Marilyn J Hammer; Mei R Fu; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.589
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
Authors: Frans Houwen; Johannes Stemkens; Peter J de Schipper; Pim van der Wouw; Martijn Heitink; Herman van Langen Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.589