Is ultrasound a useful tool for supporting lymphedema diagnosis or monitoring the effectiveness of complex decongestive therapy in patients with breast cancerrelated lymphedema?

Aim: To determine whether ultrasound is a useful tool for supporting the diagnosis of lymphedema and/or monitoring the effectivenessof complex decongestive therapy in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL).Materials and Methods: We studied both arms of 21 BCRL patients (one affected, one not-affected as a control). Patients underwent30 sessions of complex decongestive therapy and bandaging (5 days/week, 45 min/day). The skin was marked at 0, 10, 20, and 35cm between the volar wrist and acromioclavicular joint and between the dorsal wrist and posterolateral margin of the acromionbefore treatment and on the last day of treatment. Volume of the arm (Vtotal) was calculated by circumferential measurements withdermal and subcutaneous tissue thickness and compliance measurements. We summed thicknesses as “UStotal” and averagedcompliances to determine “Compliance” values. The change of values on the affected side were compared to the unaffected side.We examined correlations between Vtotal, (standard method), UStotal, and Compliance.Results: Change of Vtotal (p = 0.004) and UStotal (p = 0.045) with treatment were different between the affected and unaffectedarm. Compliance did not change in affected side with treatment. When the correlation between Vtotal, UStotal, and Compliance areperformed, before treatment, after treatment, and the change with treatment values were correlated between Vtotal and UStotal (r =0.626, 0.604, 0.459 respectively), no correlation was found between Vtotal and Compliance.Conclusion: In these patients, UStotal can be used to support the diagnosis of BCRL and/or monitor treatment in this population.UStotal/body mass index of ≥0.41 mm/kg/m2 can aid the diagnosis of BCRL with 81% sensitivity, 90.5% specificity, and 0.823 areaunder the curve (AUC). However, compliance does not seem an appropriate measurement for diagnosis and/or treatment monitoring.

PDF

___

1. Petrek JA, Pressman PI, Smith RA. Lymphedema: current issues in research and management. CA Cancer J Clin 2000;50:292-307; quiz 08-11.
2. Mortimer P, Bates D, Brassington H, Stanton A, Strachan D, Levick J. The prevalence of arm oedema following treatment for breast cancer. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 1996; 89: 377-80.
3. Hwang JH, Choi JY, Lee JY, et al. Lymphscintigraphy predicts response to complex physical therapy in patients with early stage extremity lymphedema. Lymphology 2007;40:172-6.
4. Baulieu F, Bourgeois P, Maruani A, et al. Contributions of SPECT/CT imaging to the lymphoscintigraphic investigations of the lower limb lymphedema. Lymphology 2013;46:106-19.
5. Deltombe T, Jamart J, Recloux S, et al. Reliability and limits of agreement of circumferential, water displacement, and optoelectronic volumetry in the measurement of upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology 2007;40:26-34.
6. Tomczak H, Nyka W, Lass P. Lymphoedema: lymphoscintigraphy versus other diagnostic techniques- -a clinician’s point of view. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2005;8:37-43.
7. Yang EJ, Kim SY, Lee WH, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Measures Considering Segmental Tissue Composition and Volume Changes of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol 2018;16:368-76.
8. Taylor R, Jayasinghe UW, Koelmeyer L, et al.Reliability and validity of arm volume measurements for assessment of lymphedema. Phys Ther 2006;86:205-14.
9. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2013 Consensus Document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology 2013;46:1-11.
10. Suehiro K, Morikage N, Murakami M, et al.Significance of ultrasound examination of skin and subcutaneous tissue in secondary lower extremity lymphedema. Ann Vasc Dis 2013;6:180-8.
11. Mellor RH, Bush NL, Stanton AW, Dual-frequency ultrasound examination of skin and subcutis thickness in breast cancer-related lymphedema. Breast J 2004;10:496-503.
12. Tassenoy A, De Mey J, De Ridder F, et al. Postmastectomy lymphoedema: different patterns of fluid distribution visualised by ultrasound imaging compared with magnetic resonance imaging. Physiotherapy 2011;97:234-43.
13. Lim CY, Seo HG, Kim K, et al. Measurement of lymphedema using ultrasonography with the compression method. Lymphology 2011;44:72-81.
14. Doldi SB, Lattuada E, Zappa MA, et al. Ultrasonography of extremity lymphedema. Lymphology 1992;25:129-33.
15. Lee JH, Shin BW, Jeong HJ, et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of therapeutic effects of complex decongestive therapy in breast cancer-related lymphedema. Ann Rehabil Med 2013;37:683-9.
16. Suehiro K, Morikage N, Murakami M, et al. A study of increase in leg volume during complex physical therapy for leg lymphedema using subcutaneous tissue ultrasonography. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2015;3:295-302.
17. Földi’s Textbook of Lymphology: For Physicians and Lymphedema Therapists. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier 2012.
18. Casley-Smith JR, Casley-Smith JR. Modern treatment of lymphoedema. I. Complex physical therapy: the first 200 Australian limbs. Australas J Dermatol 1992;33:61-8.
19. Kim W, Chung SG, Kim TW, et al. Measurement of soft tissue compliance with pressure using ultrasonography. Lymphology 2008;41:167-77.
20. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:15-20.
21. Suehiro K, Morikage N, Yamashita O, et al. Skin and subcutaneous tissue ultrasonography features in breast cancer-related lymphedema. Ann Vasc Dis 2016;9:312-16.