3.9 Article

A Prospective Study of L-Dex Values in Breast Cancer Patients Pretreatment and Through 12 Months Postoperatively

期刊

LYMPHATIC RESEARCH AND BIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 435-441

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lrb.2017.0070

关键词

breast cancer; lymphedema; bioimpedance; detection

资金

  1. NCATS/NIH [UL 1TR000445]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Data regarding pretreatment, bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) L-Dex((R)) values for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer, and longitudinal data 12 months postoperatively are lacking. This study describes L-Dex values at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and maximum L-Dex change within 12 months of surgery. Methods and Results: Patients were enrolled in a parent, clinical trial that compares the effectiveness of BIS for early detection of breast cancer-related lymphedema to tape measurement. A total of 280 women with a pretreatment and at least one postoperative L-Dex measurement (within 12 months of surgery) were included. Pretreatment L-Dex readings were compared with population norms and maximum L-Dex changes within 12 months were examined. An L-Dex U400 device was used to obtain BIS measurements. The documented normative mean value using this device is 0.00, which is at the 49th percentile for this sample. Approximately 6% of patients had a pretreatment L-Dex value of 7.0; 1.8% had an L-Dex value 10.0. For 12 months, 17.1% (n=48) of patients had a maximum change in L-Dex value from pretreatment of 7.0L-Dex units, suggestive of clinical lymphedema. Conclusions: At the time of breast cancer diagnosis, L-Dex values are similar to normative values. Identified maximum changes in L-Dex values 12 months postoperatively suggest that frequent L-Dex measurements during that time frame are of potential clinical benefit. Our findings are consistent with research supporting an L-Dex value of 7 as indicative of clinical lymphedema with subclinical lymphedema logically occurring at somewhat lower likely, near 6.5.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据