4.0 Review

Quality of Life Questionnaires in Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema Patients: Review of the Literature

Journal

LYMPHATIC RESEARCH AND BIOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 134-139

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lrb.2017.0046

Keywords

breast cancer; lymphedema; quality of life; questionnaire

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Lymphedema of the arm is one of the most common and underestimated side effects of breast cancer treatment. It is known to negatively affect the quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer survivors. However, there are multiple questionnaires used to measure QoL in lymphedema patients. The current study aimed to determine the most complete and accurate questionnaire. Methods: A systematic literature search in Cochrane Library database CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was conducted in August 2016 by two independent researchers. The strategy used for the search was: ((Lymphedema[Mesh]) AND (Quality of life[Mesh])). All QoL questionnaires for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) were included. An overview of the assessed QoL domains and arm symptom-specific questions was made, to assess the most complete and accurate questionnaire. Results: A total of 142 studies were identified, of which 49 met the inclusion criteria and 15 different questionnaires were extracted. The Lymphedema Quality of Life Inventory (LyQLI), assesses all QoL domains, except for the possibility of wearing the clothes of choice, and assess all specific arm symptoms. The Lymphedema Functioning, Disability, and Health (Lymph-ICF) Questionnaire assesses all QoL domains, except for sexual functioning, and does assess all specific arm symptoms. Conclusion: According to the results obtained, the LyQLI and Lymph-ICF questionnaires were the two most complete and accurate questionnaires to assess QoL in patients with BCRL, because these questionnaires assess the largest number of QoL domains and specific arm symptoms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available