Intra- and Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of a New Tool for Assessment of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop and assess intra- and interrater reliability and validity of a clinical evaluation tool for breast cancer-related lymphedema, for use in the context of outcome evaluation in clinical trials. DESIGN: Blinded repeated measures observational study. SETTING: Outpatient research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Breast cancer survivors with and without lymphedema (N=71). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The assessment of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity (CLUE) standardized clinical evaluation tool. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability for the CLUE tool was ICC: 0.88 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.71-0.96). Interrater reliability for the CLUE tool was ICC: 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95). Concurrent validity of the CLUE score (Pearson r) was 0.79 with perometric interlimb difference and 0.53 with the Norman lymphedema overall score. CONCLUSIONS: The CLUE tool shows excellent inter- and intrarater reliability. The overall CLUE score for the upper extremity also shows moderately strong concurrent validity with objective and subjective measures. This newly developed clinical, physical assessment of upper extremity lymphedema provides standardization and a single score that accounts for multiple constructs. Next steps include evaluation of sensitivity to change, which would establish usefulness to evaluate intervention efficacy.

Use of Aggressive Surveillance for Locoregional Endometrial Cancer After Local Therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines do not recommend routine surveillance imaging as part of follow-up care for patients treated for locoregional endometrial carcinoma. This study seeks to determine the potential benefit of routine surveillance imaging by evaluating outcomes of patients whose recurrences were detected on routine surveillance compared to those whose recurrences were identified after presenting with symptoms. MATERIALS/METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who developed recurrence after surgical treatment, with or without adjuvant therapy, for locoregional endometrial carcinoma. A total of 149 patients were identified with adequate clinical information regarding the recurrence. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate overall survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median age of patients at diagnosis was 69.2 years (range, 38.0-99.5 years). Initial stages included stage I, 49.7%; stage II, 10.1%; stage III, 38.3%; and stage IV, 1.3%. Histologic diagnoses included endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 48.3%; and other diagnoses (including papillary serous carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma), 51.7%. Patients were initially treated with a variety of therapies: surgery alone in 20.8%, surgery and radiation in 25.5%, surgery and chemotherapy in 12.1%, and trimodality therapy in 41.6%. Sites of recurrence included 20.8% vaginal, 14.8% pelvic and 64.4% distant sites. Recurrences were detected asymptomatically in 86 patients (57.7%) and symptomatically in 63 patients (42.3%). Of those detected asymptomatically, 80.2% were detected by imaging. Overall, when comparing symptomatic versus asymptomatic recurrences, there was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.83; P = 0.29) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.70; P = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who develop asymptomatic recurrences of their endometrial carcinoma do not seem to have a better prognosis than those who present with symptomatic recurrences. Thus, these results do not support routine imaging surveillance for patients treated for locoregional endometrial carcinoma. Further prospective evaluation is needed.