Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions

Purpose To examine the current evidence on breast lymphedema (BL) diagnosis and treatment after breast-conserving surgery, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research directions. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane, including stud...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Breast cancer research and treatment 2024-04, Vol.204 (2), p.193-222
Hauptverfasser: Brunelle, Cheryl L., Boyages, John, Jung, Amanda W., Suami, Hiroo, Juhel, Brooke C., Heydon-White, Asha, Mackie, Helen, Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley, Paramanandam, Vincent S., Koelmeyer, Louise, Taghian, Alphonse G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 222
container_issue 2
container_start_page 193
container_title Breast cancer research and treatment
container_volume 204
creator Brunelle, Cheryl L.
Boyages, John
Jung, Amanda W.
Suami, Hiroo
Juhel, Brooke C.
Heydon-White, Asha
Mackie, Helen
Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley
Paramanandam, Vincent S.
Koelmeyer, Louise
Taghian, Alphonse G.
description Purpose To examine the current evidence on breast lymphedema (BL) diagnosis and treatment after breast-conserving surgery, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research directions. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane, including studies published between 2000 and 2023. References were reviewed manually for eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who underwent breast conserving treatment (surgery ± radiation) for breast cancer, goals of the paper included analyzing or reviewing BL measurement with ultrasound or tissue dielectric constant, or BL treatment. Twenty-seven manuscripts were included in the review. Results There is variation in incidence, time course, and risk factors for BL. Risk factors for BL included breast size, primary and axillary surgery extent, radiation, and chemotherapy but require further investigation. Diagnostic methods for BL currently rely on patient report and lack standardized criteria. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and ultrasound (US) emerged as promising ambulatory BL assessment tools; however, diagnostic thresholds and validation studies with ICG lymphography are needed to establish clinical utility. The evidence base for treatment of BL is weak, lacking high-quality studies. Conclusion The natural history of BL is not well defined. TDC and US show promise as ambulatory assessment tools for BL; however, further validation with lymphatic imaging is required. BL treatment is not established in the literature. Longitudinal, prospective studies including pre-radiation measurements and validating with lymphatic imaging are required. These data will inform screening, diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatment parameters for patients with BL after breast-conserving surgery and radiation.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10549-023-07161-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2902971691</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2963004586</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c58d3cc290494b6481a5ed0156e6396f1f2da53cf497ede2a3596f4f68d2a5083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9PGzEQxS1URNK0X6AHtFIvXLYd22vvmltBlFaKxAXOluOdTTfaP8H2UuXbMyEBpB56sjTv5zdP8xj7wuEbByi_Rw6qMDkImUPJNc_5CZtzVcq8FLz8wObAdZnrCvSMfYxxAwCmBHPGZrIiA-BqzsargC6mrNv12z9YY--yZuy68W87rLPVi5b7cYgYnvaTRJPU45CICkc9827wGC4zP4Wwl2JyaYqZG-qsmdIUMKvbgD615POJnTaui_j5-C7Yw8-b--tf-fLu9vf1j2XupdC0UlW19F4YKEyx0kXFncKaEmvU0uiGN6J2SvqmMCWlFk4qmhaNrmrhFFRywS4OvtswPk4Yk-3b6LHr3IDjFC05C0NHM5zQr_-gm3EKA6UjSkuAQlWaKHGgfBhjDNjYbWh7F3aWg93XYQ91WKrDvtRh99bnR-tp1WP99uX1_gTIAxBJGtYY3nf_x_YZay-WwA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2963004586</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Brunelle, Cheryl L. ; Boyages, John ; Jung, Amanda W. ; Suami, Hiroo ; Juhel, Brooke C. ; Heydon-White, Asha ; Mackie, Helen ; Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley ; Paramanandam, Vincent S. ; Koelmeyer, Louise ; Taghian, Alphonse G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brunelle, Cheryl L. ; Boyages, John ; Jung, Amanda W. ; Suami, Hiroo ; Juhel, Brooke C. ; Heydon-White, Asha ; Mackie, Helen ; Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley ; Paramanandam, Vincent S. ; Koelmeyer, Louise ; Taghian, Alphonse G.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To examine the current evidence on breast lymphedema (BL) diagnosis and treatment after breast-conserving surgery, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research directions. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane, including studies published between 2000 and 2023. References were reviewed manually for eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who underwent breast conserving treatment (surgery ± radiation) for breast cancer, goals of the paper included analyzing or reviewing BL measurement with ultrasound or tissue dielectric constant, or BL treatment. Twenty-seven manuscripts were included in the review. Results There is variation in incidence, time course, and risk factors for BL. Risk factors for BL included breast size, primary and axillary surgery extent, radiation, and chemotherapy but require further investigation. Diagnostic methods for BL currently rely on patient report and lack standardized criteria. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and ultrasound (US) emerged as promising ambulatory BL assessment tools; however, diagnostic thresholds and validation studies with ICG lymphography are needed to establish clinical utility. The evidence base for treatment of BL is weak, lacking high-quality studies. Conclusion The natural history of BL is not well defined. TDC and US show promise as ambulatory assessment tools for BL; however, further validation with lymphatic imaging is required. BL treatment is not established in the literature. Longitudinal, prospective studies including pre-radiation measurements and validating with lymphatic imaging are required. These data will inform screening, diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatment parameters for patients with BL after breast-conserving surgery and radiation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6806</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7217</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-07161-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38100015</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Breast surgery ; Chemotherapy ; Dielectric constant ; Literature reviews ; Lumpectomy ; Lymphedema ; Lymphography ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Oncology ; Patients ; Radiation ; Radiation measurement ; Review ; Risk factors ; Surgery ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024-04, Vol.204 (2), p.193-222</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c58d3cc290494b6481a5ed0156e6396f1f2da53cf497ede2a3596f4f68d2a5083</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6986-5094</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10549-023-07161-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10549-023-07161-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38100015$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brunelle, Cheryl L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyages, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Amanda W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suami, Hiroo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juhel, Brooke C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heydon-White, Asha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mackie, Helen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paramanandam, Vincent S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koelmeyer, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taghian, Alphonse G.</creatorcontrib><title>Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions</title><title>Breast cancer research and treatment</title><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><description>Purpose To examine the current evidence on breast lymphedema (BL) diagnosis and treatment after breast-conserving surgery, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research directions. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane, including studies published between 2000 and 2023. References were reviewed manually for eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who underwent breast conserving treatment (surgery ± radiation) for breast cancer, goals of the paper included analyzing or reviewing BL measurement with ultrasound or tissue dielectric constant, or BL treatment. Twenty-seven manuscripts were included in the review. Results There is variation in incidence, time course, and risk factors for BL. Risk factors for BL included breast size, primary and axillary surgery extent, radiation, and chemotherapy but require further investigation. Diagnostic methods for BL currently rely on patient report and lack standardized criteria. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and ultrasound (US) emerged as promising ambulatory BL assessment tools; however, diagnostic thresholds and validation studies with ICG lymphography are needed to establish clinical utility. The evidence base for treatment of BL is weak, lacking high-quality studies. Conclusion The natural history of BL is not well defined. TDC and US show promise as ambulatory assessment tools for BL; however, further validation with lymphatic imaging is required. BL treatment is not established in the literature. Longitudinal, prospective studies including pre-radiation measurements and validating with lymphatic imaging are required. These data will inform screening, diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatment parameters for patients with BL after breast-conserving surgery and radiation.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast surgery</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Dielectric constant</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Lumpectomy</subject><subject>Lymphedema</subject><subject>Lymphography</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiation measurement</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0167-6806</issn><issn>1573-7217</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU9PGzEQxS1URNK0X6AHtFIvXLYd22vvmltBlFaKxAXOluOdTTfaP8H2UuXbMyEBpB56sjTv5zdP8xj7wuEbByi_Rw6qMDkImUPJNc_5CZtzVcq8FLz8wObAdZnrCvSMfYxxAwCmBHPGZrIiA-BqzsargC6mrNv12z9YY--yZuy68W87rLPVi5b7cYgYnvaTRJPU45CICkc9827wGC4zP4Wwl2JyaYqZG-qsmdIUMKvbgD615POJnTaui_j5-C7Yw8-b--tf-fLu9vf1j2XupdC0UlW19F4YKEyx0kXFncKaEmvU0uiGN6J2SvqmMCWlFk4qmhaNrmrhFFRywS4OvtswPk4Yk-3b6LHr3IDjFC05C0NHM5zQr_-gm3EKA6UjSkuAQlWaKHGgfBhjDNjYbWh7F3aWg93XYQ91WKrDvtRh99bnR-tp1WP99uX1_gTIAxBJGtYY3nf_x_YZay-WwA</recordid><startdate>20240401</startdate><enddate>20240401</enddate><creator>Brunelle, Cheryl L.</creator><creator>Boyages, John</creator><creator>Jung, Amanda W.</creator><creator>Suami, Hiroo</creator><creator>Juhel, Brooke C.</creator><creator>Heydon-White, Asha</creator><creator>Mackie, Helen</creator><creator>Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley</creator><creator>Paramanandam, Vincent S.</creator><creator>Koelmeyer, Louise</creator><creator>Taghian, Alphonse G.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6986-5094</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240401</creationdate><title>Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions</title><author>Brunelle, Cheryl L. ; Boyages, John ; Jung, Amanda W. ; Suami, Hiroo ; Juhel, Brooke C. ; Heydon-White, Asha ; Mackie, Helen ; Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley ; Paramanandam, Vincent S. ; Koelmeyer, Louise ; Taghian, Alphonse G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c58d3cc290494b6481a5ed0156e6396f1f2da53cf497ede2a3596f4f68d2a5083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast surgery</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Dielectric constant</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Lumpectomy</topic><topic>Lymphedema</topic><topic>Lymphography</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiation measurement</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brunelle, Cheryl L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyages, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Amanda W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suami, Hiroo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juhel, Brooke C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heydon-White, Asha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mackie, Helen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paramanandam, Vincent S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koelmeyer, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taghian, Alphonse G.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brunelle, Cheryl L.</au><au>Boyages, John</au><au>Jung, Amanda W.</au><au>Suami, Hiroo</au><au>Juhel, Brooke C.</au><au>Heydon-White, Asha</au><au>Mackie, Helen</au><au>Chou, Shinn-Huey Shirley</au><au>Paramanandam, Vincent S.</au><au>Koelmeyer, Louise</au><au>Taghian, Alphonse G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions</atitle><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle><stitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</stitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><date>2024-04-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>204</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>193</spage><epage>222</epage><pages>193-222</pages><issn>0167-6806</issn><eissn>1573-7217</eissn><abstract>Purpose To examine the current evidence on breast lymphedema (BL) diagnosis and treatment after breast-conserving surgery, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research directions. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane, including studies published between 2000 and 2023. References were reviewed manually for eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who underwent breast conserving treatment (surgery ± radiation) for breast cancer, goals of the paper included analyzing or reviewing BL measurement with ultrasound or tissue dielectric constant, or BL treatment. Twenty-seven manuscripts were included in the review. Results There is variation in incidence, time course, and risk factors for BL. Risk factors for BL included breast size, primary and axillary surgery extent, radiation, and chemotherapy but require further investigation. Diagnostic methods for BL currently rely on patient report and lack standardized criteria. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and ultrasound (US) emerged as promising ambulatory BL assessment tools; however, diagnostic thresholds and validation studies with ICG lymphography are needed to establish clinical utility. The evidence base for treatment of BL is weak, lacking high-quality studies. Conclusion The natural history of BL is not well defined. TDC and US show promise as ambulatory assessment tools for BL; however, further validation with lymphatic imaging is required. BL treatment is not established in the literature. Longitudinal, prospective studies including pre-radiation measurements and validating with lymphatic imaging are required. These data will inform screening, diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatment parameters for patients with BL after breast-conserving surgery and radiation.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>38100015</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10549-023-07161-1</doi><tpages>30</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6986-5094</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-6806
ispartof Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024-04, Vol.204 (2), p.193-222
issn 0167-6806
1573-7217
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2902971691
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Breast cancer
Breast surgery
Chemotherapy
Dielectric constant
Literature reviews
Lumpectomy
Lymphedema
Lymphography
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Oncology
Patients
Radiation
Radiation measurement
Review
Risk factors
Surgery
Ultrasonic imaging
Ultrasound
title Breast lymphedema following breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer: current status and future directions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T18%3A42%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Breast%20lymphedema%20following%20breast-conserving%20treatment%20for%20breast%20cancer:%20current%20status%20and%20future%20directions&rft.jtitle=Breast%20cancer%20research%20and%20treatment&rft.au=Brunelle,%20Cheryl%20L.&rft.date=2024-04-01&rft.volume=204&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=193&rft.epage=222&rft.pages=193-222&rft.issn=0167-6806&rft.eissn=1573-7217&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10549-023-07161-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2963004586%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2963004586&rft_id=info:pmid/38100015&rfr_iscdi=true