What is the best method to determine excessive arm volume in patients with breast cancer–related lymphoedema in clinical practice? Reliability,time efficiency and clinical feasibility of five different methods

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the reliability, time efficiency and clinical feasibility of five commonly used methods for assessing excessive arm volume in patients with breast cancer–related lymphoedema (BCRL).

Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Setting:

University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium.

Subjects:

30 participants with unilateral BCRL.

Methods:

Excessive arm volume was determined by five different methods: traditional volumetry with overflow, volumetry without overflow, inverse volumetry, optoelectronic volumetry and calculated volume based on circumference measurements. To investigate intra- and inter-rater reliability, measurements were performed twice by the same assessor and once by a different assessor. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard errors of the measurement (SEMs) and systematic changes between the means were calculated. To determine time efficiency, the mean setup time, execution time and total time were examined for each method. Furthermore, 12 limitations regarding clinical feasibility were listed and scored for each method. Finally, an overall ranking score was determined between the methods.

Results:

Mean age was 65 (±8) years and mean body mass index was 28 (±4) kg/m². Intra- and inter-rater reliability ranged between strong and very strong. Calculated arm volume based on circumferences (mean excessive arm volume: assessor A: 477 (±367) mL; assessor B: 470 (±367) mL; assessor A (second time): 493 (±362) mL) showed the highest intra- and inter-rater ICCs of .987 and .984, respectively. Optoelectronic volumetry was the fastest method, representing a mean total time of 1 minute and 43 (±26) seconds for performing a bilateral measurement. The least limitations were reported on the calculated volume based on the circumference method (3 out of 12 limitations).

Conclusion:

Calculated volume based on arm circumferences is the best measurement method for evaluating excessive arm volume over time in terms of reliability, low error rate, low cost, few limitations and the time spent.

Keywords

Breast neoplasms lymphoedema assessment reliability time efficiency feasibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

DiSipio

Rye

Newman

et al . Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(6): 500–515.

Megens

Harris

Kim-Sing

et al . Measurement of upper extremity volume in women after axillary dissection for breast cancer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82(12): 1639–1644.

Gerber

LH.

A review of measures of lymphedema. Cancer 1998; 83(12 Suppl): 2803–2804.

Damstra

Glazenburg

Hop

WC.

Validation of the inverse water volumetry method: a new gold standard for arm volume measurements. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 99(3): 267–273.

Sagen

Karesen

Skaane

et al . Validity for the simplified water displacement instrument to measure arm lymphedema as a result of breast cancer surgery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90(5): 803–809.

Gebruers

Truijen

Engelborghs

et al . Volumetric evaluation of upper extremities in 250 healthy persons. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2007; 27(1): 17–22.

Tierney

Aslam

Rennie

et al . Infrared optoelectronic volumetry, the ideal way to measure limb volume. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1996; 12(4): 412–417.

Pani

Vanamail

Yuvaraj

Limb circumference measurement for recording edema volume in patients with filarial lymphedema. Lymphology 1995; 28(2): 57–63.

Martignon

Vankerckhove

Fung

et al . Evaluation of the reliability of four measuring methods of hand’s perimeter and volume: Buoyancy Forces ValGrado system, circumference measurement, Figure-of-Eight Method and Manu3metrix Scanner. In: 8th international lymphoedema framework conference, Rotterdam, 6–9 June 2018.

10.

Stanton

Northfield

Holroyd

et al . Validation of an optoelectronic limb volumeter (perometer). Lymphology 1997; 30(2): 77–97.

11.

Taylor

Jayasinghe

Koelmeyer

et al . Reliability and validity of arm volume measurements for assessment of lymphedema. Phys Ther 2006; 86(2): 205–214.

12.

Hidding

Viehoff

Beurskens

et al . Measurement properties of instruments for measuring of lymphedema: systematic review. Phys Ther 2016; 96(12): 1965–1981.

13.

De Vrieze

Vos

Gebruers

et al . Protocol of a randomised controlled trial regarding the effectiveness of fluoroscopy-guided manual lymph drainage for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphoedema (EFforTBCRL trial). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 221: 177–188.

14.

Rajapakse

Grennan

Jones

et al . Thermography in the assessment of peripheral joint inflammation – a re-evaluation. Rheumatol Rehabil 1981; 20(2): 81–87.

15.

Boland

Adams

Development and evaluation of a precision forearm and hand volumeter and measuring cylinder. J Hand Ther 1996; 9(4): 349–358.

16.

Casley-Smith

. Modern treatment of lymphoedema. I. Complex physical therapy: the first 200 Australian limbs. Australas J Dermatol 1992; 33(2): 61–68.

17.

Lexell

Downham

DY.

How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84(9): 719–723.

18.

Koo

MY.

A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15(2): 155–163.

19.

Shrout

Fleiss

JL.

Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86(2): 420–428.

20.

Fleiss

JL.

Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986.

21.

Fleiss

JL.

Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

22.

Deltombe

Jamart

Recloux

et al . Reliability and limits of agreement of circumferential, water displacement, and optoelectronic volumetry in the measurement of upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology 2007; 40(1): 26–34.

23.

Galland

Auvert

Flahault

et al . Why and how post-mastectomy edema should be quantified in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002; 75(1): 87–89.

24.

Gjorup

Zerahn

Hendel

HW.

Assessment of volume measurement of breast cancer-related lymphedema by three methods: circumference measurement, water displacement, and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Lymphat Res Biol 2010; 8(2): 111–119.

25.

Karges

Mark

Stikeleather

et al . Concurrent validity of upper-extremity volume estimates: comparison of calculated volume derived from girth measurements and water displacement volume. Phys Ther 2003; 83(2): 134–145.

26.

Devoogdt

Lemkens

Geraerts

et al . A new device to measure upper limb circumferences: validity and reliability. Int Angiol 2010; 29(5): 401–407.

27.

Chen

Tsai

Hung

et al . Reliability study of measurements for lymphedema in breast cancer patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87(1): 33–38.

28.

Sharkey

King

Kuo

et al . Measuring limb volume: accuracy and reliability of tape measurement versus perometer measurement. Lymphat Res Biol 2018; 16(2): 182–186.

29.

Beek

te Slaa

van der Laan

et al . Reliability of the inverse water volumetry method to measure the volume of the upper limb. Lymphat Res Biol 2015; 13(2): 126–130.

30.

Farrell

Johnson

Duncan

et al . The intertester and intratester reliability of hand volumetrics. J Hand Ther 2003; 16(4): 292–299.

31.

Maihafer

Llewellyn

Pillar

Jr et al . A comparison of the figure-of-eight method and water volumetry in measurement of hand and wrist size. J Hand Ther 2003; 16(4): 305–310.

32.

Borthwick

Paul

Sneddon

et al . Reliability and validity of the figure-of-eight method of measuring hand size in patients with breast cancer-related lymphoedema. Eur J Cancer Care 2013; 22(2): 196–201.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.88 MB