Ultrasound for the Objective Measurement of Breast Lymphedema

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

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.

Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions

PURPOSE

To examine the current evidence on breast lymphedema (BL) diagnosis and treatment after breast-conserving surgery, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research directions.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane, including studies published between 2000 and 2023. References were reviewed manually for eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who underwent breast conserving treatment (surgery ± radiation) for breast cancer, goals of the paper included analyzing or reviewing BL measurement with ultrasound or tissue dielectric constant, or BL treatment. Twenty-seven manuscripts were included in the review.

RESULTS

There is variation in incidence, time course, and risk factors for BL. Risk factors for BL included breast size, primary and axillary surgery extent, radiation, and chemotherapy but require further investigation. Diagnostic methods for BL currently rely on patient report and lack standardized criteria. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and ultrasound (US) emerged as promising ambulatory BL assessment tools; however, diagnostic thresholds and validation studies with ICG lymphography are needed to establish clinical utility. The evidence base for treatment of BL is weak, lacking high-quality studies.

CONCLUSION

The natural history of BL is not well defined. TDC and US show promise as ambulatory assessment tools for BL; however, further validation with lymphatic imaging is required. BL treatment is not established in the literature. Longitudinal, prospective studies including pre-radiation measurements and validating with lymphatic imaging are required. These data will inform screening, diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatment parameters for patients with BL after breast-conserving surgery and radiation.

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.

Omental vascularized lymph node transplant for the treatment of breast lymphedema: A case report

Breast lymphedema is a type of breast cancer related lymphedema that leads to significant discomfort and negative impact on body image. Conservative therapy and lymphovenous bypass have been previously described as possible treatment methods for breast lymphedema, however, a unified approach to treatment is lacking. The current report describes a case of breast lymphedema successfully treated with vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) after failed attempt at management with conservative therapy. The patient is a 48-year-old female with right-sided breast cancer who underwent breast conservation therapy in 2015 and subsequently developed pain and swelling of the right breast. The diagnosis of breast lymphedema was supported by clinical evaluation as well as MRI, lymphoscintigraphy, and lymphography. In consultation with a breast surgeon, breast lymphedema was determined not to be an indication for mastectomy. The patient was offered and underwent an omental VLNT to the right breast. A 20 cm segment of omentum with associated gastroepiploic vessels and lymph nodes was harvested, transferred to the right axilla and gastroepiploic vessels were anastomosed to the recipient thoracodorsal vessels. The patient tolerated the procedure well and there were no complications. Additional donor sites were considered, such as the groin and submental regions, but an omental flap was favored in this case because of the lower risk of donor site lymphedema. In the years following, the patient reported significant improvement in symptoms as well as objective reduction of edema on MRI. We propose the consideration of VLNT for breast lymphedema refractory to other methods of management.

The effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on skin biophysical properties in patients with breast cancer at risk for breast lymphedema: A prospective study

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer among women. Radiotherapy (RT) is one of the main and primary treatment options for BC, especially in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). BC patients who underwent RT experience a wide range of symptoms, in which breast oedema and irritation of the skin take the lion's share. Breast oedema/lymphedema, which is also a prominent side effect after RT should be well determined in earlier settings due to the chronicity of lymphedema. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the biophysical parameters of skin on the ipsilateral (IL) and contralateral (CL) sites via Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) methods in terms of oedema and skin barrier function (SBF). The following reference points before and after the RT were measured: (R1: Pectoralis muscle, R2: Upper breast, R3: Lower breast, R4: Lateral site of the thorax). A total of 24 BC patients (mean age and BMI: 52.78 ± 9.85 years and 28.42 ± 5.64 kg/m² ) were evaluated. In the IL site, the SBF was not found significant in R1-R3, whereas significantly lower SBF was observed in R4 after RT (t = -3.361, p = 0.003). A significant increase in TDC was observed in R2 at the 5.0 mm depth (t = -2.500, p = 0.02). We suggest that a longer period of follow-up should be carefully carried out to track changes in terms of SBF and oedema in the irradiated breast. The increased need for early detection of changes associated with breast lymphedema can be achievable via noninvasive, safe, cheap, and easily repeatable devices.