4.7 Article

Indocyanine green lymphangiography is superior to clinical staging in breast cancer-related lymphedema

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00396-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ICG-L staging of BCRL is superior in forecasting excess arm volume, fat mass, and lean mass, but there is a high degree of variance within each staging system.
Precise staging of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is important to guide treatment-decision making. Recent studies have suggested staging of BCRL using indocyanine green lymphangiography (ICG-L) based on the extent of lymphatic injury and dermal backflow patterns. Currently, the benefits of ICG-L compared to conventional clinical staging are unknown. For this study, we included 200 patients with unilateral BCRL. All BCRL patients were staged using ICG-L and clinical exam. The amounts of excess arm volume, fat mass and lean mass were compared between stages using Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry. Multivariate regression models were used to adjust for confounders. For each increase in the patient's ICG-L stage, the excess arm volume, fat mass and lean mass was increased by 8, 12 and 6.5 percentage points respectively (P < 0.001). For each increase in the patient's clinical ISL stage, the volume was increased by 3.5 percentage points (P < 0.05), however no statistically significant difference in the lean and fat mass content of the arm was observed for ascending stages. However, the residual plots showed a high degree of variance for both ICG-L and clinical staging. This study found that ICG-L staging of BCRL was superior to clinical staging in forecasting BCRL excess arm volume, fat mass, and lean mass. However, there was a high degree of variance in excess arm volume, fat mass, and lean mass within each staging system, and neither the ICG-L nor clinical staging forecasted perfectly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available