L-dex ratio in detecting breast cancer-related lymphedema: reliability, sensitivity, and specificity.

Advances in bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) permit the assessment of lymphedema by directly measuring lymph fluid changes. The objective of the study was to examine the reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of cross-sectional assessment of BIA in detecting lymphedema in a large metropolitan clinical setting. BIA was used to measure lymph fluid changes. Limb volume by sequential circumferential tape measurement was used to validate the presence of lymphedema. Data were collected from 250 women, including healthy female adults, breast cancer survivors with lymphedema, and those at risk for lymphedema. Reliability, sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve were estimated. BIA ratio, as indicated by L-Dex ratio, was highly reliable among healthy women (ICC=0.99; 95% CI = 0.99 - 0.99), survivors at-risk for lymphedema (ICC=0.99; 95% CI = 0.99 - 0.99), and all women (ICC=0.85; 95% CI = 0.81 - 0.87); reliability was acceptable for survivors with lymphedema (ICC=0.69; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.80). The L-Dex ratio with a diagnostic cutoff of >+7.1 discriminated between at-risk breast cancer survivors and those with lymphedema with 80% sensitivity and 90% specificity (AUC=0.86). BIA ratio was significantly correlated with limb volume by sequential circumferential tape measurement. Cross-sectional assessment of BIA may have a role in clinical practice by adding confidence in detecting lymphedema. It is important to note that using a cutoff of L-Dex ratio >+7.1 still misses 20% of true lymphedema cases, it is important for clinicians to integrate other assessment methods (such as self-report, clinical observation, or perometry) to ensure the accurate detection of lymphedema.

The effects of symptomatic seroma on lymphedema symptoms following breast cancer treatment.

It has been speculated that symptomatic seroma, or seroma requiring needle aspiration, is one of the risk factors for lymphedema symptoms following breast cancer treatment. These symptoms exert tremendous impact on patients' quality of life and include arm swelling, chest/breast swelling, heaviness, tightness, firmness, pain, numbness, stiffness, or impaired limb mobility. Our aim was to explore if symptomatic seroma affects lymphedema symptoms following breast cancer treatment. Data were collected from 130 patients using a Demographic and Medical Information interview tool, Lymphedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire, and review of medical record. Arm swelling was verified by Sequential Circumferential Arm Measurements and Bioelectrical Impedance Spectroscopy. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, regression, exploratory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. Thirty-five patients (27%) developed symptomatic seroma. Locations of seroma included axilla, breast, and upper chest. Significantly, more women with seroma experienced more lymphedema symptoms. A well-fit exploratory structural equation model [X2(79) = 92.15, p = 0.148; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96] revealed a significant unique effect of seroma on lymphedema symptoms of arm swelling, chest/breast swelling, tenderness, and blistering (beta = 0.48, p < 0.01). Patients who developed symptomatic seroma had 7.78 and 10.64 times the odds of developing arm swelling and chest/breast swelling versus those who did not, respectively (p < 0.001). Symptomatic seroma is associated with increased risk of developing lymphedema symptoms following breast cancer treatment. Patients who develop symptomatic seroma should be considered at higher risk for lymphedema symptoms and receive lymphedema risk reduction interventions.