Analysis of Different Lymphedema Assessment Tools in Women with Breast Cancer After Mastectomy.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Lymphatic research and biology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1089/lrb.2024.0004
Rocío Abalo-Núñez, Iria Da Cuña-Carrera, Alejandra Alonso-Calvete, Eva M Lantarón-Caeiro, Mercedes Soto-González
{"title":"Analysis of Different Lymphedema Assessment Tools in Women with Breast Cancer After Mastectomy.","authors":"Rocío Abalo-Núñez, Iria Da Cuña-Carrera, Alejandra Alonso-Calvete, Eva M Lantarón-Caeiro, Mercedes Soto-González","doi":"10.1089/lrb.2024.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Lymphedema is a common complication after mastectomy in women with breast cancer. Several methods have been described to assess and diagnose lymphedema, one of the most studied being the perimeter and ultrasonography. However, the reliability of these methods and the correlation between them are still controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the reliability of cytometry and ultrasound imaging in the assessment of lymphedema after mastectomy in women with breast cancer and to study the correlation between them. <b><i>Methods and Results:</i></b> A cross-sectional study was conducted in 29 women with mastectomy after breast cancer. Lymphedema in the arm was measured both with cytometry and ultrasonography. Reliability was calculated with intraclass correlation coefficient. The correlation between the two methods was carried out with the Pearson correlation coefficient. Both cytometry (M1: α = 0.999, ICC = 0.996; M2: = α = 0.998, ICC = 0.994) and ultrasonography (M1: α = 0.992, ICC = 0.976; M2: = α = 0.991, ICC = 0.973) are reliable methods to assess lymphedema in the arm. No significant correlation was found between them (<i>p</i> > 0.05). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Cytometry and ultrasonography appear to be adequate for the measurement of edema in women with breast cancer after mastectomy. However, for an accurate measurement of lymphedema, these measurements should not be used interchangeably.</p>","PeriodicalId":18168,"journal":{"name":"Lymphatic research and biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lymphatic research and biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2024.0004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lymphedema is a common complication after mastectomy in women with breast cancer. Several methods have been described to assess and diagnose lymphedema, one of the most studied being the perimeter and ultrasonography. However, the reliability of these methods and the correlation between them are still controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the reliability of cytometry and ultrasound imaging in the assessment of lymphedema after mastectomy in women with breast cancer and to study the correlation between them. Methods and Results: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 29 women with mastectomy after breast cancer. Lymphedema in the arm was measured both with cytometry and ultrasonography. Reliability was calculated with intraclass correlation coefficient. The correlation between the two methods was carried out with the Pearson correlation coefficient. Both cytometry (M1: α = 0.999, ICC = 0.996; M2: = α = 0.998, ICC = 0.994) and ultrasonography (M1: α = 0.992, ICC = 0.976; M2: = α = 0.991, ICC = 0.973) are reliable methods to assess lymphedema in the arm. No significant correlation was found between them (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Cytometry and ultrasonography appear to be adequate for the measurement of edema in women with breast cancer after mastectomy. However, for an accurate measurement of lymphedema, these measurements should not be used interchangeably.

乳腺癌患者乳房切除术后不同淋巴水肿评估工具的分析。
背景:淋巴水肿是乳腺癌妇女乳房切除术后常见的并发症。已有多种方法用于评估和诊断淋巴水肿,其中研究最多的是周径和超声波检查。然而,这些方法的可靠性以及它们之间的相关性仍存在争议。本研究旨在分析细胞测量和超声成像在评估乳腺癌女性乳房切除术后淋巴水肿方面的可靠性,并研究两者之间的相关性。方法和结果:对 29 名乳腺癌切除术后的妇女进行了横断面研究。手臂淋巴水肿的测量采用细胞测量法和超声波检查法。通过类内相关系数计算可靠性。两种方法之间的相关性用皮尔逊相关系数进行计算。细胞测量法(M1:α = 0.999,ICC = 0.996;M2=:α = 0.998,ICC = 0.994)和超声波检查法(M1:α = 0.992,ICC = 0.976;M2=:α = 0.991,ICC = 0.973)都是评估手臂淋巴水肿的可靠方法。它们之间没有发现明显的相关性(P > 0.05)。结论是细胞测量法和超声波检查法似乎足以测量乳房切除术后乳腺癌妇女的水肿情况。但是,为了准确测量淋巴水肿,这两种测量方法不应交替使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lymphatic research and biology
Lymphatic research and biology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Lymphatic Research and Biology delivers the most current peer-reviewed advances and developments in lymphatic biology and pathology from the world’s leading biomedical investigators. The Journal provides original research from a broad range of investigative disciplines, including genetics, biochemistry and biophysics, cellular and molecular biology, physiology and pharmacology, anatomy, developmental biology, and pathology. Lymphatic Research and Biology coverage includes: -Vasculogenesis and angiogenesis -Genetics of lymphatic disorders -Human lymphatic disease, including lymphatic insufficiency and associated vascular anomalies -Physiology of intestinal fluid and protein balance -Immunosurveillance and immune cell trafficking -Tumor biology and metastasis -Pharmacology -Lymphatic imaging -Endothelial and smooth muscle cell biology -Inflammation, infection, and autoimmune disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信