ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In the United States, breast cancer (BC) is the most common non-skin cancer. In Poland, it is estimated that the number of new breast cancer cases affects about 13,500 women each year. There are many methods for nutritional status assessment. One of them is bioimpedance analysis (BIA). Direct bioimpedance measures (resistance, reactance, phase angle (PA)) determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) detectf changes in tissue electrical properties. The study was conducted to investigate whether there are any tissue electrical differences in patients with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The direct bioimpedance measures determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) were performed on 34 patients with BC and 34 healthy volunteers. The measurements were made with ImpediMed bioimpedance analysis SFB7 BioImp v1.55 (Pinkenba Qld 4008, Australia). RESULTS: Reactance and resistance at 50 kHz was found to be significantly greater in patients with BC than in the control group (53.59° ± 1.53 vs. 47.26° ± 1.25, respectively, p=0.0031; 603.24° ± 15.38 ohm vs. 515.87° ± 11.48 ohm, respectively, p=0.00004). CONCLUSION: Pre-surgical patients diagnosed with BC have altered tissue electrical properties. Further observations of a larger patient group would be valuable to calculate survival, validate the prognostic significance of PA, and monitor nutritional and therapeutic interventions in this patient population.
Subject(s)
Body Composition , Body Water/physiology , Breast Neoplasms/physiopathology , Electric Conductivity , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Case-Control Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Electric Impedance , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Poland , Statistics, NonparametricABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The study was conducted to evaluate soft tissue hydration and mass through pattern analysis of vector plots as height, normalized resistance, and reactance measurements by bioelectric impedance vector analysis (BIVA) in patients with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole-body measurements were made with ImpediMed bioimpedance analysis SFB7 BioImp v1.55 (Pinkenba Qld 4008, Australia) in 68 adult, white, female subjects: 34 adult, white female (age 31-82) patients with breast cancer and 34 healthy volunteers matched by age, gender and BMI as a control group. The measurements were performed prior to oncological and surgical treatment, without the need for active nutritional interventions. RESULTS: Mean vectors of women with breast cancer versus the healthy women groups were characterized by a slight increase of the normalized resistance and reactance components (separate 95% confidence limits, p < 0.05) indicating that there were slight differences of soft tissue hydration and mass. CONCLUSION: The results observed in the presented study provide valuable information on the nutritional status of the patient prior to surgery. This quick assessment of the patient nutritional status can allow for early corrective intervention. Further observational research investigating these properties in larger groups would be beneficial to elucidate and/or confirm these findings.
