4.7 Review

Diagnostic Criteria for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity: The Need for Universal Agreement

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 989-1002

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10645-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01CA139118, P50CA08393]
  2. Adele McKinnon Research Fund for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema
  3. Olayan-Xefos Family Fund for Breast Cancer Research
  4. Heinz Family Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With advancements in breast cancer treatments, the focus is now shifting towards post-treatment complications like BCRL, with emphasis on early detection and intervention for improved prognosis. The lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for BCRL has led to variations in practices across institutions, highlighting the need for universal standardized diagnostic processes.
With advances in breast cancer treatments and resultant increased survival rates, emphasis has been placed on post-treatment complications such as breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), a chronic, negative sequela of breast cancer treatment. Accurate BCRL diagnosis necessitates longitudinal screening beginning at preoperative baseline. Prospective screening programs incorporating symptoms, objective measurements and clinical examination allow for early detection, early intervention, and improved BCRL prognosis. Currently, varied diagnostic criteria for BCRL exist, and this lack of consensus leads to variation in diagnostic and screening practices across institutions. This review outlines current diagnostic tools, including subjective and objective measurement methods and clinical examination. The merits of different criteria are evaluated and recommendations are made regarding measurement tools and diagnostic criteria for BCRL. Ultimately, the BCRL diagnostic process should be universalized and combine objective measurements, clinical evaluation, and symptoms assessment, and adhere to the best practices of the measurement tools used.

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

4.7
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