Michelle Coriddi1, Leslie Kim2, Leslie McGrath2, Elizabeth Encarnacion2, Nicholas Brereton2, Yin Shen3, Andrea V Barrio4, Babak Mehrara2, Joseph H Dayan2. 1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. coriddim@mskcc.org. 2. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology-Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer-related lymphedema occurs in up to 30% of women following axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and less commonly following sentinel lymph node biopsy. To quantify disability in these patients, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have proven useful; however, given the overlap of symptoms between ALND and lymphedema, examination of their accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in detecting lymphedema in breast cancer patients undergoing ALND is needed. METHODS: The Lymphedema Life Impact Scale (LLIS) and the Upper Limb Lymphedema 27 scale (ULL27) were administered to patients who had undergone ALND at least 2 years prior and either did or did not develop lymphedema. Survey responses and the degree of disability were compared to generate receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, and the sensitivity and specificity of PROMs to diagnose lymphedema were analyzed. RESULTS: Both PROMs were highly accurate, sensitive, and specific for detecting lymphedema. The LLIS had an accuracy of 97%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 84.8% at a cutoff of ≥ 5.88 overall percent impairment score (higher scores indicate worse disability). The ULL27 had an accuracy of 93%, sensitivity of 88.6%, and specificity of 90.9% at a cutoff of ≤ 83.3 global score (lower scores indicate worse disability). CONCLUSIONS: The LLIS and the ULL27 appear to be highly specific for lymphedema and capable of differentiating it from symptoms resulting from ALND alone. Our findings suggest that use of these questionnaires with a threshold may be effective for diagnosing lymphedema, potentially reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and time-consuming measurements.
INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer-related lymphedema occurs in up to 30% of women following axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and less commonly following sentinel lymph node biopsy. To quantify disability in these patients, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have proven useful; however, given the overlap of symptoms between ALND and lymphedema, examination of their accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in detecting lymphedema in breast cancer patients undergoing ALND is needed. METHODS: The Lymphedema Life Impact Scale (LLIS) and the Upper Limb Lymphedema 27 scale (ULL27) were administered to patients who had undergone ALND at least 2 years prior and either did or did not develop lymphedema. Survey responses and the degree of disability were compared to generate receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, and the sensitivity and specificity of PROMs to diagnose lymphedema were analyzed. RESULTS: Both PROMs were highly accurate, sensitive, and specific for detecting lymphedema. The LLIS had an accuracy of 97%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 84.8% at a cutoff of ≥ 5.88 overall percent impairment score (higher scores indicate worse disability). The ULL27 had an accuracy of 93%, sensitivity of 88.6%, and specificity of 90.9% at a cutoff of ≤ 83.3 global score (lower scores indicate worse disability). CONCLUSIONS: The LLIS and the ULL27 appear to be highly specific for lymphedema and capable of differentiating it from symptoms resulting from ALND alone. Our findings suggest that use of these questionnaires with a threshold may be effective for diagnosing lymphedema, potentially reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and time-consuming measurements.
Authors: J S Rietman; P U Dijkstra; J H B Geertzen; P Baas; J de Vries; W V Dolsma; J W Groothoff; W H Eisma; H J Hoekstra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Louise Marie Beelen; Anne-Margreet van Dishoeck; Elena Tsangaris; Michelle Coriddi; Joseph H Dayan; Andrea L Pusic; Anne Klassen; Dalibor Vasilic Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 5.344