Attaining consensus on a core dataset for upper limb lymphoedema using the Delphi method: A foundational step in creating a clinical support system.

Background: Lymphoedema is a condition of localised swelling caused by a compromised lymphatic system. The protein-rich fluid accumulating in the interstitial tissue can create inflammation and irreversible changes to the skin and underlying tissue. An array of methods has been used to assess and report these changes. Heterogeneity is evident in the clinic and in the literature for the domains assessed, outcomes and outcome measures selected, measurement protocols followed, methods of analysis, and descriptors used to report change. Objective: This study seeks consensus on the required items for inclusion in a core data set for upper limb lymphoedema to digitise the monitoring and reporting of upper limb lymphoedema. Methods: The breadth of outcomes and descriptors in common use were captured in prior studies by this research group. This list was refined by frequency and proposed to experts in the field (n = 70) through a two-round online modified Delphi study. These participants rated the importance of each item for inclusion in the dataset and identified outcomes or descriptors they felt were missing in Round 1. In Round 2, participants rated any new outcomes or descriptors proposed and preference for how numeric data is displayed. Results: The core dataset was confirmed on completion of Round 2. Interlimb difference as a percentage, and limb volume were preferred for graphed display over time; and descriptors for observed and palpated change narrowed from 42 to 20. Conclusion: This dataset provides the foundation to create a clinical support system for upper limb lymphoedema.

Reliability and Measurement Error of Breast Volume Calculation Using Three-Dimensional Surface Imaging.

Background: Breast lymphedema after breast cancer is challenging to quantify. Three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging is one available technique to measure breast volume, however, the measurement properties of available software programs have not been fully determined. The aim of this study was to determine equivalency of measurements with two software programs as well as reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), and smallest detectable change (SDC). Methods and Results: Retrospective three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) of 100 breasts taken before or after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer were retrieved for reliability analysis. Three assessors followed a standardized measurement technique using two software programs, Vectra® 3D Analysis Module (VAM) and Breast Sculptor®. Mean breast volume was 489.9 ± 206 cc using VAM and 480.1 ± 229.1 cc using Breast Sculptor. Lin's concordance showed poor agreement between programs (0.81-0.88). Measurements using VAM had excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability with SEM = 4.1% for one assessor and 8.7% for multiple assessors. Breast Sculptor also had excellent intra-rater and substantial inter-rater reliability but the SEM was much larger at 14.5% (intra-rater) and 19.1% (inter-rater). The SDC value was lowest for VAM and a single rater with 56 cc indicating a meaningful change beyond measurement error. Conclusion: Breast volume measurements captured with 3D-SI using VECTRA-XT are highly reliable, but the volumes, SEM, and SDC varied between the two software programs. Measurement error was lowest with VAM software. Although the usefulness of VECTRA-XT and VAM software to detect change in breast volume is promising, further solutions to reduce measurement error are required to improve clinical utility to measure breast lymphedema.

Quantification of breast lymphoedema following conservative breast cancer treatment: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Breast lymphoedema is a possible side effect of breast conserving surgery, but it is poorly understood. This is due, in part, to difficulty assessing the breast. This systematic review described outcome measures that quantify breast lymphoedema signs and symptoms and evaluated the measurement properties for these outcome measures. METHOD: Seven databases were searched using terms in four categories: breast cancer, lymphoedema and oedema, clinician reported (ClinROM) and patient reported outcome measures (PROM) and psychometric and measurement properties. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies and completed quality assessments. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology was used for studies including measurement property evidence. RESULTS: Fifty-six papers were included with thirteen questionnaires, eight patient-reported rating scales, seven physical measures, seven clinician-rating scales and four imaging techniques used to quantify breast lymphoedema. Based on COSMIN methodology, one ClinROM had sufficient reliability, ultrasound measuring dermal thickness. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) measuring local tissue water had promising reliability. Four questionnaires had sufficient content validity (BLYSS, BLSQ, BrEQ and LYMQOL-Breast). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound is recommended to reliably assess breast lymphoedema signs. No PROM can be recommended with confidence, but BLYSS, BLSQ, BrEQ and LYMQOL-Breast are promising. Further research is recommended to improve evidence of measurement properties for outcome measures. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: There are many approaches to assess breast lymphoedema, but currently, only ultrasound can be recommended for use, with others, such as TDC and questionnaires, showing promise. Further research is required for all approaches to improve evidence of measurement properties.

Safety and Feasibility of a Kinesiotape Application for Secondary Hand Lymphedema: A Case Series.

Background: The safety and feasibility of using kinesiotape as a short-term alternative treatment to compression garments or gloves for hand lymphedema have not been examined. The aim of this study was to examine if kinesiotape could maintain size and extracellular fluid (ECF) volume of the hand and forearm, as well as upper limb function and quality of life for women with secondary hand lymphedema. Methods and Results: Six women with secondary hand lymphedema underwent pretreatment measurements, including hand and digit size using a tape measure; ECF volume using bioimpedance spectroscopy; and patient-reported outcome measurements of upper limb function and quality of life. Kinesiotape was then applied to the dorsum of the hand and left for 48 h, during which participants were asked not to wear compression garments. Posttreatment measurements were completed after kinesiotape removal. Changes in measurements were compared to the smallest detectable change (SDC). Hand size did not change more than the SDC; however, a single affected digit increased in circumference by more than the SDC. Changes of the whole arm ECF volume were less than the SDC. The ECF volume of the dorsum of the hand increased in one and decreased in another participant. The forearm ECF volume decreased in two participants. Upper limb function and quality of life did not change. No adverse event was reported. Conclusion: Short-term kinesiotape use appears to be safe in maintaining the physical presentation of hand lymphedema. However, these results should be examined in a larger sample. The feasibility of using kinesiotape as an alternative treatment to compression requires further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12618001232224p, July 23, 2018 retrospectively registered.

Prophylactic Use of Compression Sleeves Reduces the Incidence of Arm Swelling in Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether prophylactic use of compression sleeves prevents arm swelling in women who had undergone axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Women (n = 307) were randomly assigned to either a compression or control group. In addition to usual postoperative care, the compression group received two compression sleeves to wear postoperatively until 3 months after completing adjuvant treatments. Arm swelling was determined using bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) thresholds and relative arm volume increase (RAVI). Incidence and time free from arm swelling were compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from Cox regression models for BIS and RAVI thresholds independently. In addition, time to documentation of the first minimally important difference (MID) in four scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the breast cancer-specific (BR23) questionnaire was analyzed. RESULTS: The HR for developing arm swelling in the compression group relative to the control group was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.85; P = .004) on the basis of BIS and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.96; P = .034) on the basis of RAVI. The estimated cumulative incidence of arm swelling at 1 year was lower in the compression group than the control group on the basis of BIS (42% v 52%) and RAVI (14% v 25%). HRs for time from baseline to the first change of the minimally important difference were not statistically significant for any of the four scales of EORTC QLQ-30 and BR23 questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic use of compression sleeves compared with the control group reduced and delayed the occurrence of arm swelling in women at high risk for lymphedema in the first year after surgery for breast cancer.

Body image and sexuality concerns in women with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: (1) To determine, in women with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), the frequency, intensity and distress of body image and sexuality concerns. (2) To examine relationships between body image and sexuality concerns, and lymphedema, personal and cancer treatment factors. METHOD: Women with BCRL (n = 64) completed the Lymphedema Symptom Intensity and Distress Scale - Arm (LSIDS-A), which focuses on the intensity and distress of a range of lymphedema symptoms. They also underwent a lymphedema assessment. Responses to eight questions from the LSIDS-A regarding sexuality, body image and intimate relationships were considered. Frequency of responses was tabulated. Multiple linear regressions were used to determine if specific factors were related to higher intensity and distress scores associated with body image and sexuality issues. RESULTS: Body image and sexuality concerns were common (48%, 23% respectively). Participants reported a range (0-10) of intensity and distress related to body image and sexuality symptoms. Univariate linear regression revealed greater intensity of sexuality concerns was associated with younger age, whilst distress related to sexuality concerns was associated with higher inter-arm bioimpedance ratio and shorter duration of lymphedema. Body image concerns were not related to any considered factors. CONCLUSION: Body image and sexuality concerns are common, intense and distressing for patients with breast cancer lymphedema. Assessment of both the intensity and distressed caused by these symptoms is necessary to understand the impact of lymphedema.

Lymphoscintigraphy as an Outcome Measurement for Conservative Upper Limb Lymphedema Treatments: A Systematic Review.

Background: The impact of conservative interventions on lymphatic function and the relationship to clinical outcomes is currently unknown. A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate studies that used lymphoscintigraphy to measure outcomes from conservative intervention for secondary arm lymphedema and to explore the relationship between changes in the lymphoscintigraphy and clinical outcomes. Methods and Results: Five databases were systematically searched using the selection criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; pre/post and cohort studies; upper limb secondary lymphedema; use of lymphoscintigraphy as an outcome measure; and conservative intervention. Seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Compression, exercise, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and pharmacological interventions were evaluated using lymphoscintigraphy. There was heterogeneity with all aspects of the lymphoscintigraphy techniques, including radioisotope used, injection location, use of exercise, and imaging sequence between the studies as well as the outcome analysis. Also most studies did not show a relationship between the clinical and lymphoscintigraphy outcomes measured. Conclusions: Lymphoscintigraphy has not been used regularly or recently to evaluate conservative upper limb lymphedema treatment outcomes. Lack of standardization of lymphoscintigraphy protocols and lack of consensus and understanding of the lymphoscintigraphy analyses used to measure the outcomes of diverse conservative lymphedema interventions currently limit the use of lymphoscintigraphy as an outcome measure. Further research adopting recent guidelines to standardize lymphoscintigraphy and use of reliable analysis techniques that measure the physiological impact of the chosen conservative lymphedema intervention is recommended to evaluate the impact of conservative interventions on lymphatic function.

Sensory signs and symptoms in women with self-reported breast cancer-related lymphedema: a case-control study close up.

PURPOSE: It is not clear to what extent signs and symptoms other than arm swelling, including pain, altered sensory function, and body perception disturbances, differ between women with measurable and non-measurable breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). A case-control study was performed to compare these signs and symptoms between (1) women with self-reported BCRL with objectively measurable swelling; (2) women with self-reported BCRL without objective confirmation; and (3) a control group with no self-reported BCRL. METHODS: The three groups were compared for (1) the severity of self-reported signs and symptoms of BCRL, (2) problems in functioning related to BCRL, (3) pain-related outcomes, (4) sensory functions, and (5) body perception. RESULTS: All self-reported outcomes related to signs and symptoms of BCRL and problems in functioning were significantly different between the control group and the other two groups with and without measurable self-reported BCRL (p < 0.001-0.003). Except for "skin texture" (p = 0.01), "hand swelling" (p=0.301) and 'difficulty writing' (p=0.676), no differences were found between groups. For pain-related outcomes, sensory function, and body perception, significant differences were only found for the mechanical detection threshold (p < 0.01) and self-reported disturbances in body perception (p < 0.001) between the self-reported BCRL groups and control group. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse signs and symptoms related to BCRL, sensory function, and perception were different among women with self-reported BCRL compared to controls. No differences between women with and without measurable self-reported BCRL were found. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The presence of self-reported BCRL, with or without measurable swelling, is a first indication for the need of further diagnostic evaluation.

Ultrasound: Assessment of breast dermal thickness: Reliability, responsiveness to change, and relationship to patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The current study assessed the level of reliability of ultrasound to assess dermal thickness, a clinical feature of breast lymphedema. Additionally, the relationship of dermal thickness to patient-reported outcomes was investigated. METHODS: Women (n = 82) with unilateral breast edema secondary to treatment of breast cancer were randomized to an exercise or control group. Ultrasound measurements of the unaffected and affected breasts were taken at baseline and 12 weeks later at 3-4 cm superior, medial, inferior, and lateral to the nipple. Additionally, women completed breast-related questions from the European Organization Research and Treatment Committee Quality of Life breast cancer module (EORTC-BR23) and Lymphedema Symptom Intensity and Distress Questionnaire (LSIDS). Reliability of ultrasound measurements was determined on the unaffected breast. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (2,1) ranged from 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52-0.77) for the lateral location to 0.84 (0.77-0.90) for the superior location. Percent close agreement (80%) on the unaffected breast ranged from 0.20 to 0.27 mm compared to 0.57 to 0.93 mm on the affected breast. The standard error of measurement (%) on the unaffected breast varied from 9% to 13% with smallest real difference 0.34-0.41 mm. Dermal thickness of the affected breast was not-to-poorly associated with EORTC BR23 and LSIDS scores. CONCLUSION: Reliability of dermal thickness measurements of the breast was excellent for the superior, medial, and inferior locations, and fair to good for the lateral location. However, these measurements were not related to the symptom's women perceive and measured with the EORTC BR23 or LSIDS.

The accuracy and precision of interface pressure measuring devices: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Interface pressure measuring devices are used to assess the pressures exerted by compression. Their performance, however, has not been considered as a contributing factor to reported inconsistences in the application of compression. A systematic review was undertaken to investigate the performance of commercially available devices used to measure interface pressure. METHODS: Six databases were searched identifying 17 devices, grouped into five sensor categories. RESULTS: A range of methodologies assessed the devices' accuracy and precision, including method of pressure application, device calibration and type of surface used. No sensor category outperformed the others, however some individual sensors showed higher accuracy and/or precision compared to others. Two major factors influenced the performance of a number of sensors: the amount of applied pressure and the calibration method used. CONCLUSION: Inconsistences in the application of compression may reflect, in part, issues related to accuracy and precision of the devices used to assess compression.

Self-reported signs and symptoms of secondary upper limb lymphoedema related to breast cancer treatment: Systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer survivors with secondary upper limb lymphoedema (ULL) may report a wide range of self-reported symptoms. At the moment, no overview of ULL-specific symptoms is available. The first aim, therefore, was to compare the prevalence rates of self-reported signs and symptoms in people with and without secondary ULL due to breast cancer treatment. The second aim was to determine whether symptoms of lymphoedema could be predictive for the development of ULL. The third aim was to describe the association between the presence/severity of symptoms and the presence/severity of ULL. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, with key words related to breast cancer, symptoms and ULL. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were eligible. The most frequently reported signs and symptoms were swelling (80.9%) and heaviness (66.7%) in the ULL group and tenderness (37%) and numbness (27%) in the non-ULL group. Perceived larger arm size, as well as feelings of arm tightness, stiffness, puffiness, pain, sensory disturbances and functional changes were predictive for the development of ULL. Moderate correlations were found between the presence of swelling, firmness in the past year and tightness now and severity of ULL. There was also moderate correlation between the presence of swelling and heaviness now and the presence of ULL. CONCLUSIONS: Swelling and heaviness are the most commonly reported symptoms in patients with ULL. The presences of these two symptoms are moderately correlated with the presence and/or severity of ULL. Although limited information regarding the predictive self-reported symptoms for the development of ULL was found. Further research with standardised definitions of ULL and validated questionnaires for self-reported signs and symptoms are needed to confirm which signs and symptoms are related to ULL and which to other upper limb morbidities.

Psychological Factors Are Associated with Pain at All Time Frames After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to 1) assess associations between psychological factors and pain after breast cancer (BC) treatment and 2) determine which preoperative psychological factors predicted pain in the acute, subacute, and chronic time frames after BC surgery. DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis. SUBJECTS: Women with early-stage BC. METHODS: The Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched between 1990 and January 2019. Studies that evaluated psychological factors and pain after surgery for early-stage BC were included. Associations between psychological factors and pain, from early after surgery to >12 months after surgery, were extracted. Effect size correlations (r equivalents) were calculated and pooled by using random-effects meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Of 4,137 studies, 47 were included (n = 15,987 participants; 26 studies ≤12 months after surgery and 22 studies >12 months after surgery). The majority of the studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Higher preoperative anxiety and depression were weak but significant predictors of pain at all time points up to 12 months (r equivalent: 0.15-0.22). Higher preoperative pain catastrophizing and distress were also weak but significant predictors of pain during the acute (0-7 days) and chronic (3-12 months) periods (r equivalent: 0.10-0.20). For the period >12 months after surgery, weak but significant cross-sectional associations with pain were identified for anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, and distress (r equivalents: 0.15, 0.17, 0.25, 0.14, respectively). CONCLUSION: Significant pooled effect size correlations between psychological factors and pain were identified across all time frames. Though weak, these associations should encourage assessment of key psychological factors during preoperative screening and pain assessments at all postoperative time frames.

Self-reported questionnaires for lymphoedema: a systematic review of measurement properties using COSMIN framework.

INTRODUCTION: Lymphoedema may develop as a result of numerous genetic and traumatic causes; however, treatment for cancer is the most common cause of its development in more economically developed nations. This systematic review critically appraised, compared and summarised the measurement properties of lymphoedema-specific self-reported questionnaires (SRQs) measuring various patient-reported outcomes including quality of life (QOL), function, morbidity, and symptoms. METHODS: Seven databases were searched to identify studies of the measurement properties of SRQs. Two review teams independently evaluated the quality of the individual studies using the risk of bias tool from the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Measurement properties of the SRQs presented in the studies were then rated. Study level ratings were summarised for an SRQ if they were reported in multiple studies, and their overall quality of the evidence were then graded. RESULTS: Forty articles, reporting on 19 SRQs were identified from 8615 records. The focus of the 19 SRQs included eight on QOL, four on symptoms, two on function, and two on impairment. The other three SRQs were on illness perception, self-efficacy, and patient-relevant treatment benefit, respectively. Eight and three SRQs were upper limb and lower limb-specific, respectively, whereas seven questionnaires were for both upper and lower limb lymphoedema. One SRQ was developed for head and neck lymphoedema. According to the COSMIN framework, none of the SRQs reviewed had sufficient evidence to support all nine measurement properties. In lower limb questionnaires, the LYMQOL-leg has sufficient content, structural, and construct validity as well as internal consistency and reliability. For upper limb lymphoedema questionnaires, the Lymph-ICF-UL had sufficient content and construct validity as well as reliability. CONCLUSION: LYMQOL-leg SRQ is recommended with confidence for evaluation of QOL of people with lower limb lymphoedema while the Lymph-ICF-UL is recommended for evaluation of the QOL of the breast cancer-related lymphoedema with some confidence. In view of the high level of the indeterminate ratings of the measurement properties of the existing SRQs, further research is desirable.

Reliability and Validity of Physical Tools and Measurement Methods to Quantify Hand Swelling: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Hand swelling may result from injury or trauma. Various physical assessment tools and measurement methods can be used to quantify the volume or size of the hand or fingers; however, the reliability and validity of each tool and measurement method have not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of physical assessment tools and methods used to quantify hand and finger volume orsize. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched using key terms related to swelling, edema, volume, size, hand, measures, reliability, and validity. Cross-sectional or longitudinal studies that assessed reliability and/or validity of physical assessment tools or measurement methods to quantify hand swelling were included. Two examiners independently extracted data from the included articles and appraised the articles' quality using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methodology. Data extracted from studies analyzing reliability and validity were grouped by type of assessment tool and measurement method. RESULTS: Five physical assessment tools used for quantification of hand swelling were evaluated, including tape measure, water volumeter, bioimpedance spectroscopy, ring gauge, 3-dimensional techniques. All assessment tools had good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.74 - 0.99), and moderate to high validity (Pearson coefficient = 0.58 - 0.99), for quantification of the volume or size of the hand or fingers. CONCLUSION: All measurement methods with these tools had good to excellent reliability and moderate to high validity. The evidence underpinning the figure-of-eight technique, which uses a tape measure, was the highest. Because these physical assessment tools and measurement methods assess different aspects and regions of the hand, which one is selected depends on the region of interest for assessment and the availability of tools. IMPACT: Reliable tools and measurement methods are available to measure the size or volume of the hand and fingers, either together or separately. The best tool will depend on the aim of assessment and tool availability. LAY SUMMARY: Hand swelling can occur with injuries, burns, or lymphedema. This review shows that tools are available to accurately measure swelling in any part of thehand.

Three Decades of Bioelectrical Impedance Spectroscopy in Lymphedema Assessment: An Historical Perspective.

Bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) is a technology that is widely used for the assessment of body composition. The method is based on the measurement of the electrical resistance of the body or a body region that can be quantitatively related to the amount of water in the tissues. Lymphedema is characterized, at least in its early stages, as an accumulation of lymph, an extracellular fluid. In the late 1980s, it was recognized that it might be possible to adapt BIS protocols to measure this increase in lymph volume. Subsequently, the use of BIS for the early detection of breast cancer-related lymphedema was demonstrated in the early 1990s, with BIS reference values indicative of lymphedema published in 2001. The subsequent two decades have seen BIS become a widely accepted method for lymphedema assessment. This review traces the evolution of the BIS technique since its inception and presents the current state of the art, with particular emphasis on utility in clinical practice.

Interchangeability of Two Electrode Placement Protocols Used by Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Devices in the Detection of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

Background: Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) devices are routinely used in the assessment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). The equipotential electrode placement is a commonly used protocol for the assessment of BCRL. However, the sternal notch electrode placement protocol is also in use. Whether these two protocols are interchangeable is not known. Methods and Results: Ethical approval was received from the institutional ethics committee at Tata Memorial Hospital, India. BIS measurements (whole-body right side and affected and unaffected arms) of 100 women with or at risk of BCRL were measured using equipotential and sternal notch protocols. Resistance at zero frequency (R0) was determined, and agreement of the absolute R0 values and the R0 ratio (unaffected/affected) between protocols was evaluated (Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression analysis). Mean absolute differences between protocols were very small for whole-body right side, affected arm, unaffected arm, and the interarm ratio at 0.23 ohms (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.8 to 4.3), -5.7 ohms (95% CI: -7.5 to -3.9), -9.09 ohms (95% CI: -11.4 to -6.8), and -0.008 ohms (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.001), respectively. Limits of agreement (two standard deviation) between protocols were narrow for whole-body right side, affected arm, unaffected arm, and interarm ratio without any systematic or proportional differences for whole-body right side and the interarm ratio (5.8% to -5.6%, 3.7% to -7.4%, 3.5% to -8.2%, and 5.8% to -5.6%, respectively). Conclusion: The equipotential and sternal notch protocols could be used interchangeably in BCRL assessment. The Clinical Trial Registration number: CTRI/2017/12/010762.

Clinician Assessment of Upper Limb Lymphedema: An Observational Study.

Background: Clinical management of lymphedema requires assessment, initially for detection, and then for determining treatment response and informing the treatment plan. It is unknown how the components of a lymphedema assessment are used in a clinical environment. Methods and Results: Experienced lymphedema therapists were observed assessing patients presenting with new or existing upper body lymphedema. Occupational and physiotherapists specializing in lymphedema management (n = 14) from public and private, rural and urban settings in Australia were visited at their work sites and observed with a minimum of two patients. In total, 37 upper limb assessments were observed. Reasons for attendance included: initial assessment with new swelling (n = 4); screening/detection for possible lymphedema (n = 3); bandaging as part of an intensive treatment program (n = 2); and review (n = 28). Clinicians were observed, in order of frequency, using (1) patient-reported outcomes, (2) palpation, (3) visual assessment, (4) assessment of limb size using circumference measurements, and (5) assessment of extracellular fluid using bioimpedance spectroscopy. Although clinicians selected similar assessments, differences were observed in the measurement protocols and informed reported. Objective assessment was commonly absent when the time available for an appointment was 30 minutes. Conclusions: While clinicians spent a significant portion of an appointment time assessing the limb, a standardized approach to the assessment of lymphedema was not observed. In the absence of a standardized assessment set, therapists have developed bespoke assessment routines.

Assessment of Upper Limb Lymphedema: A Qualitative Study Exploring Clinicians' Clinical Reasoning.

Background: A variety of objective and subjective assessments are available for clinical assessment of lymphedema. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical reasoning underpinning the assessment of upper limb lymphedema by experienced lymphedema clinicians. Methods and Results: Semistructured, individual, interviews were conducted with lymphedema therapists (n = 14) from a variety of treatment settings. These interviews were conducted after observations of these therapists assessing patients with lymphedema and focused on: (1) the therapists' rationale for the assessments selected, (2) how the data were analyzed, and (3) how the information was then used. Assessment selection was guided by the purpose of the visit, patient preference, resources, and time available. Subjective measures of visible and palpated tissue changes were used to target treatment, and objective measures of circumference and bioimpedance spectroscopy and patient report of symptoms informed treatment evaluation and disease progression. Objective data collected were primarily analyzed for interlimb difference and change between appointments. Conclusions: A range of clinical assessments were used in the evaluation of lymphedema to detect the presence of lymphedema, estimate the extent of soft tissue change, understand the patient experience of lymphedema, and evaluate treatment response. A primary determinant for the collection of objective measures was the appointment duration. Current methods of data analysis and reporting do not facilitate the review of change over time.