L. C. Ward, Belinda Thompson, K. Gaitatzis, Louise A. Koelmeyer
{"title":"在评估单侧乳腺癌相关性淋巴水肿时,比较使用站立式设备进行的体积测量和生物阻抗分光光度法。","authors":"L. C. Ward, Belinda Thompson, K. Gaitatzis, Louise A. Koelmeyer","doi":"10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2024.2023-12-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective\nBreast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) may be assessed through objective measurement of limb swelling with common techniques including volumetric measurement using a tape measure or perometry, and measurement of extracellular water using bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a stand-on BIS device for detection of BCRL, introduce a novel graphical method to compare volumetric and BIS methods alongside traditional specificity and sensitivity analysis, and determine and compare BIS thresholds with those published previously.\n\n\nMaterials and Methods\nFemale participants with indocyanine green lymphography confirmed unilateral arm lymphedema (n = 197) and healthy controls (n = 267) were assessed using a cross-sectional study design. BIS and volumetric measures were obtained in a single session.\n\n\nResults\nThe BIS lymphedema index (L-Dex) method had a significantly higher sensitivity than the excess volume approach (area under the curve = 0.832 vs. 0.649, p = 0.0001). A threshold of L-Dex 6.5 had a higher true positive rate (70.6%) than L-Dex 10 (68.5%) although false positive rate increased from 0.4% to 2.6%. A threshold of 5% excess volume improved the true positive rate (68.5%) compared with 10% excess volume (49.7%) however the false positive rate increased to an unacceptable 47%. The L-Dex ranges in this study were not significantly different from previously published ranges.\n\n\nConclusion\nBIS was superior for identifying BCRL compared with volume measurements, reaffirming the value of this technique. However, it is recommended that BIS be used in conjunction with comprehensive evaluation of symptoms and clinical presentation. The proposed graphical method provides a simple and easily interpretable approach to compare and define concordance between the two commonly used methods for BCRL assessment namely limb volume and BIS L-Dex indices. The existing BIS (L-Dex) thresholds for presence of BCRL were also validated.","PeriodicalId":93996,"journal":{"name":"European journal of breast health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Volume Measurements and Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Using A Stand-on Device for Assessment of Unilateral Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.\",\"authors\":\"L. C. Ward, Belinda Thompson, K. Gaitatzis, Louise A. Koelmeyer\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2024.2023-12-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective\\nBreast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) may be assessed through objective measurement of limb swelling with common techniques including volumetric measurement using a tape measure or perometry, and measurement of extracellular water using bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a stand-on BIS device for detection of BCRL, introduce a novel graphical method to compare volumetric and BIS methods alongside traditional specificity and sensitivity analysis, and determine and compare BIS thresholds with those published previously.\\n\\n\\nMaterials and Methods\\nFemale participants with indocyanine green lymphography confirmed unilateral arm lymphedema (n = 197) and healthy controls (n = 267) were assessed using a cross-sectional study design. BIS and volumetric measures were obtained in a single session.\\n\\n\\nResults\\nThe BIS lymphedema index (L-Dex) method had a significantly higher sensitivity than the excess volume approach (area under the curve = 0.832 vs. 0.649, p = 0.0001). A threshold of L-Dex 6.5 had a higher true positive rate (70.6%) than L-Dex 10 (68.5%) although false positive rate increased from 0.4% to 2.6%. A threshold of 5% excess volume improved the true positive rate (68.5%) compared with 10% excess volume (49.7%) however the false positive rate increased to an unacceptable 47%. The L-Dex ranges in this study were not significantly different from previously published ranges.\\n\\n\\nConclusion\\nBIS was superior for identifying BCRL compared with volume measurements, reaffirming the value of this technique. However, it is recommended that BIS be used in conjunction with comprehensive evaluation of symptoms and clinical presentation. The proposed graphical method provides a simple and easily interpretable approach to compare and define concordance between the two commonly used methods for BCRL assessment namely limb volume and BIS L-Dex indices. The existing BIS (L-Dex) thresholds for presence of BCRL were also validated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of breast health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of breast health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2024.2023-12-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of breast health","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2024.2023-12-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿(BCRL)可通过客观测量肢体肿胀来进行评估,常用的技术包括使用卷尺或周径测量法进行体积测量,以及使用生物阻抗光谱法(BIS)测量细胞外水分。本研究旨在评估站立式 BIS 设备在检测 BCRL 方面的性能,引入一种新颖的图形方法,与传统的特异性和灵敏度分析方法一起比较体积测量法和 BIS 方法,并确定和比较 BIS 阈值与之前公布的阈值。材料和方法采用横断面研究设计,对患有吲哚菁绿淋巴造影术证实的单侧手臂淋巴水肿的女性参与者(n = 197)和健康对照组(n = 267)进行评估。结果BIS淋巴水肿指数(L-Dex)法的灵敏度明显高于过量体积法(曲线下面积 = 0.832 vs. 0.649,p = 0.0001)。尽管假阳性率从 0.4% 上升到 2.6%,但 L-Dex 6.5 临界值的真阳性率(70.6%)高于 L-Dex 10 临界值(68.5%)。与超量 10%(49.7%)相比,超量 5%的阈值提高了真阳性率(68.5%),但假阳性率却增加到令人无法接受的 47%。本研究中的 L-Dex 范围与之前公布的范围没有明显差异。结论与容积测量相比,BIS 在识别 BCRL 方面更具优势,再次证明了该技术的价值。不过,建议在使用 BIS 时结合症状和临床表现的综合评估。所提出的图形方法提供了一种简单且易于解释的方法,用于比较和确定 BCRL 评估的两种常用方法(即肢体体积和 BIS L-Dex 指数)之间的一致性。现有的 BIS(L-Dex)阈值也对 BCRL 的存在进行了验证。
Comparison of Volume Measurements and Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Using A Stand-on Device for Assessment of Unilateral Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.
Objective
Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) may be assessed through objective measurement of limb swelling with common techniques including volumetric measurement using a tape measure or perometry, and measurement of extracellular water using bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a stand-on BIS device for detection of BCRL, introduce a novel graphical method to compare volumetric and BIS methods alongside traditional specificity and sensitivity analysis, and determine and compare BIS thresholds with those published previously.
Materials and Methods
Female participants with indocyanine green lymphography confirmed unilateral arm lymphedema (n = 197) and healthy controls (n = 267) were assessed using a cross-sectional study design. BIS and volumetric measures were obtained in a single session.
Results
The BIS lymphedema index (L-Dex) method had a significantly higher sensitivity than the excess volume approach (area under the curve = 0.832 vs. 0.649, p = 0.0001). A threshold of L-Dex 6.5 had a higher true positive rate (70.6%) than L-Dex 10 (68.5%) although false positive rate increased from 0.4% to 2.6%. A threshold of 5% excess volume improved the true positive rate (68.5%) compared with 10% excess volume (49.7%) however the false positive rate increased to an unacceptable 47%. The L-Dex ranges in this study were not significantly different from previously published ranges.
Conclusion
BIS was superior for identifying BCRL compared with volume measurements, reaffirming the value of this technique. However, it is recommended that BIS be used in conjunction with comprehensive evaluation of symptoms and clinical presentation. The proposed graphical method provides a simple and easily interpretable approach to compare and define concordance between the two commonly used methods for BCRL assessment namely limb volume and BIS L-Dex indices. The existing BIS (L-Dex) thresholds for presence of BCRL were also validated.