Cancer-related lymphedema is a common, lifelong, and disabling condition resulting from oncologic treatments. Although multidisciplinary collaboration enhances patient outcomes, a framework for research and therapeutic priorities for prevention and treatment is lacking. This study utilizes group concept mapping (GCM), a participatory research methodology, to highlight clinical and scholarly priorities.
Methods:
Providers and researchers involved in lymphedema care at The Ohio State University, a Lymphatic Education & Research Network (LE&RN) Center of Excellence, participated in a GCM study between November 2024 and January 2025. The groupwisdom® web-platform was used to (1) generate ideas for clinical/academic priorities for multidisciplinary collaboration, (2) sort priorities into categories, and (3) rate priorities on (a) the basis of their contribution to value-based care and (b) likelihood to secure research funding. Hierarchical cluster analysis yielded two-dimensional representations of conceptual similarity between items. Ratings were synthesized into GoZone plots demonstrating priorities most likely to secure funding and contribute to high-value care.
Results:
Thirty-five participants identified 74 priority areas. Cluster domains included: (1) identification/validation of patient-reported outcome metrics, (2) optimizing prospective surveillance, (3) surgical prevention/management of lymphedema, (4) diagnosis of lymphedema and downstream sequelae, (5) identifying risk factors/prediction tools, (6) basic/translational research, and (7) access to care/resource utilization. Improving access to care and mitigating resource barriers were deemed most impactful for delivering high-value care and ability to secure research funding.
Conclusions:
Priorities identified at our LE&RN Lymphedema Center of Excellence provide a framework for multidisciplinary collaboration to improve care delivery and patient outcomes for those with and at-risk for cancer-related lymphedema.
GebruersN, VerbelenH, De VriezeT, et al.Incidence and time path of lymphedema in sentinel node negative breast cancer patients: A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2015; 96(6):1131–1139.
2.
DiSipioT, RyeS, NewmanB, et al.Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol, 2013; 14(6):500–515; doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70076-7
KapellasN, DemiriE, LampropoulosA, et al.Genetic predisposition in cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review. Lymphat Res Biol, 2022; 20(5):478–487.
5.
McLaughlinSA, BrunelleCL, TaghianA. Breast cancer-related lymphedema: Risk factors, screening, management, and the impact of locoregional treatment. J Clin Oncol, 2020; 38(20):2341–2350.
6.
LentzR, ShinC, BloomZ, et al.From bench to bedside: The role of a multidisciplinary approach to treating patients with lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol, 2021; 19(1):11–16.
SchaverienMV, BaumannDP, SelberJC, et al.Building a multidisciplinary comprehensive academic lymphedema program. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 2020; 8(3):e2670.
9.
BestS, ThurskyK, BuzzaM, et al.Aligning organizational priorities and implementation science for cancer research. BMC Health Serv Res, 2024; 24(1):338.
10.
ChangD, DayanJ, FriedP, et al.Establishing standards for centers of excellence for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphatic disease. Lymphat Res Biol, 2021; 19(1):4–10.
11.
ThompsonJR, BurkeJG. Increasing community participation in public health research: Applications for concept mapping methodology. Prog Community Health Partnersh, 2020; 14(2):243–250.
12.
RosasSR, KaneM. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann, 2012; 35(2):236–245.
13.
PalinkasLA, HorwitzSM, GreenCA, et al.Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in med method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health, 2015; 42(5):533–544.
14.
KrippendorfK. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 2nd edition. Sage; 2004.
KruskalJ. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964; 29(1):1–27.
17.
MorleyCP, RosasSR, MishoriR, et al.Essential public health competencies for medical students: Establishing a consensus in family medicine. Teach Learn Med, 2017; 29(3):255–267.
18.
KaneM, TrochimW. Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks; 2007.
19.
RobersonML, StrasslePD, OgunleyeAA. Hospitalizations due to lymphedema in the US: A one billion dollar burden on the healthcare system each year. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2020; 231(4):e45–e46.
20.
PepinsLA, DasariS, RodriguezJL, et al.Employment after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment among women in the sister and the two sister studies. J Occup Rehabil, 2021; 31(3):543–551.
21.
WuY, LiuX, MaculaitisMC, et al.Financial toxicity among patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Cancers (Basel), 2023; 16(1):62.
22.
SpencerJC, ReeveBB, TroesterMA, et al.Factors associated with endocrine therapy non-adherence in breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology, 2020; 29(4):647–654.
23.
FinkelsteinER, HaM, HanwrightP, et al.A critical analysis of American insurance coverage for imaging and surgical treatment of lymphedema. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord, 2022; 10(6):1367–1375.
24.
RueblingI, EggenbergerT, FrostJS, et al.Interprofessional collaboration: A public policy healthcare transformation call for action. Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice, 2023; 33:100675.
25.
McGrathLA, BloomfieldE. Prevention, surveillance, and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: The role of the advanced practice provider. Clin J Oncol Nurs, 2024; 28(2):122–127.
26.
DingJ, HasanB, MalandrisK, et al.Prospective surveillance and risk reduction of cancer treatment-related lymphedema: Systemic review and meta-analysis. Oncol Nurs Forum, 2020; 47(5):E161–E170.
27.
StoutNL, PfalzerLA, SpringerB, et al.Breast cancer-related lymphedema: Comparing direct costs of a prospective surveillance model and a traditional model of care. Phys Ther, 2012; 92(1):152–163.
28.
GreenAK, GossJA. Diagnosis and staging of lymphedema. Semin Plast Surg, 2018; 32(1):12–16.
29.
FloresAM, NelsonJ, SowlesL, et al.Lymphedema signs, symptoms, and diagnosis in women who are in minority and low-income groups and have survived breast cancer. Phys Ther, 2020; 100(3):487–499.
30.
PaskettED, Le-RademacherJ, OliveriJM, et al.A randomized study to prevent lymphedema in women treated for breast cancer: CALGB 70305 (Alliance). Cancer, 2021; 127(2):291–299.
31.
JayasreeKR, VijaykumarDK, VijayanS, et al.A comprehensive review of computational diagnostic techniques for lymphedema. Prog Biomed Eng (Bristol), 2025:10.
32.
FearnN, LlanosC, DylkeE, et al.Quantification of breast lymphoedema following conservative breast cancer treatment: A systematic review. J Cancer Surviv, 2023; 17(6):1669–1687.
33.
RidnerSH, DietrichMS, CowherMS, et al.A randomized trial evaluating bioimpedence spectroscopy versus tape measurement for the prevention of lymphedema following treatment for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol, 2019; 26(10):3250–3259.
34.
RidnerSH, DietrichMS, BoyagesJ, et al.A comparison of bioimpedence spectroscopy or tape measure triggered compression intervention in chronic breast cancer lymphedema prevention. Lymphat Res Biol, 2022; 20(6):618–628.
35.
MorganPA, MurrayS, MoffattCJ, et al.The challenges of managing complex lymphoedema/chronic oedema in UK and Canada. Int Wound J, 2012; 9(1):54–69.
36.
KoelmeyerLA, MoloneyE, BoyagesJ, et al.Prospective surveillance model in the home for breast cancer-related lymphoedema: A feasibility study. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2021; 185(2):401–412.
37.
SquitieriL, BozicKJ, PusicAL. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value Health, 2017; 20(6):834–836.
38.
KeeneyT, KumarA, ErlerKS, et al.Making the case for patient-reported outcome measures in big-data rehabilitation research: Implications for optimizing patient-centered care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2022; 103(5S):S140–S145.
39.
RiveraSC, KyteDG, AiyegbusiOL, et al.The impact of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: A systematic review and critical analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2019; 17(1):156.
40.
BeelenLM, van DishoeckA, TsangarisE, et al.Patient-Reported outcome measures in lymphedema: A systematic review and COSMIN analysis. Ann Surg Oncol, 2021; 28(3):1656–1668.
41.
ParamanandamVS, LeeM, KilbreathSL, et al.Self-reported questionnaires for lymphoedema: A systematic review of measurement properties using COSMIN FRAMEWORK. Acta Oncol, 2021; 60(3):379–391.
42.
KoelmeyerL, GaitatzisK, RidnerSH, et al.Implementing a prospective surveillance and early intervention model of care for breast cancer-related lymphedema into clinical practice: Application of the RE-AIM framework. Support Care Cancer, 2021; 29(2):1081–1089.
43.
MittendorfEA, HuntKK. Lymphatic interrupted: Do we really understand the risks and consequences? Ann Surg Oncol, 2009; 16(7):1768–1770.
44.
ArraultM, VignesS. Risk factors for developing upper limb lymphedema after breast cancer treatment. Bull Cancer, 2006; 93(10):1001–1006.
45.
ArmerJM, BallmanKV, McCallL, et al.Factors associated with lymphedema in women with node-positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and axillary dissection. JAMA Surg, 2019; 154(9):800–809.
46.
Hua-PingH, Jian-RongZ, ZengQ. Risk factors associated with lymphedema among postmenopausal breast cancer survivors after radical mastectomy and axillary dissection in China. Breast Care (Basel), 2012; 7(6):461–464.
47.
BurianEA, RungbyJ, KarlsmarkT, et al.The impact of obesity on chronic oedema/lymphoedema of the Leg- an International Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study (LIMPRINT). Int J Obes (Lond), 2024; 48(9):1238–1247.
48.
MontagnaG, ZhangJ, SevilimeduV, et al.Risk factors and racial and ethnic disparities in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. JAMA Oncol, 2022; 8(8):1195–1200.
49.
ShangT, LiangJ, KapronCM, et al.Pathophysiology of aged lymphatic vessels. Aging (Albany NY), 2019; 11(16):6602–6613.
50.
NewmanB, LoseF, KeddaMA, et al.Possible genetic predisposition to lymphedema after breast cancer. Lymphat Res Biol, 2012; 10(1):2–13.
51.
LyCL, KataruRP, MehraraBJ. Inflammatory manifestations of lymphedema. In J Mol Sci, 2017; 18(1).
52.
BrownS, DayanJH, CoriddiM, et al.Pharmacological treatment of secondary lymphedema. Front Pharmacol, 2022; 13:828513.
53.
BoccardoF, CasabonaF, De CianF, et al.Lymphedema microsurgical preventive healing approach: A new technique for primary prevention of arm lymphedema after mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol, 2009; 16(3):703–708.
JørgensenMG, ToyserkaniNM, SørensenJA. The effect of prophylactic lymphovenous anastomosis and shunts for preventing cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microsurgery, 2018; 38(5):576–585.
56.
ChoM, GarciaJF, MyungY, et al.Evolving role of lymphedema surgery on breast reconstruction: A systematic review and multi-institutional algorithmic approach. J Clin Med, 2024; 13(21):6518.
57.
LipmanK, LuanA, StoneK, et al.Lymphatic microsurgical preventive healing approach (LYMPHA) for lymphedema prevention after axillary lymph node dissection- a single institution experience and feasibility of technique. J Clin Med, 2021; 11(1):92.
58.
ChoMJ, SengerJL, ParkKU, et al.Preventing breast cancer-related lymphedema: A comprehensive analysis of a 9-year single-center experience of prophylactic lymphovenous bypass. Annal Surg Oncol, 2024.
59.
LynnJV, HespeGE, AkhterMF, et al.Cross-sectional analysis of insurance coverage for lymphedema treatments in the United States. JAMA Surg, 2023; 158(9):920–926.
