Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Patterns of Obesity and Lymph Fluid Level during the First Year of Breast Cancer Treatment: A Prospective Study
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Breast Cancer Survivorship Care: Targeting a Colorectal Cancer Education Intervention

Prospective Lymphedema Surveillance in a Clinic Setting

Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri-Columbia, S235 School of Nursing Building, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
Lymphedema Research Laboratory, Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, DC 116.05, Suite 408, Mizzou North Campus, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, One Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO 65212, USA
Statistics Department, University of Missouri-Columbia, 23 Middlebush Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Stephen B. Liggett
J. Pers. Med. 2015, 5(3), 311-325;
Received: 2 May 2015 / Accepted: 17 August 2015 / Published: 25 August 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Long-term Cancer Survivorship)
The potential impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema (LE) is quite extensive, yet it often remains under-diagnosed until the later stages. This project examines the effectiveness of prospective surveillance in post-surgical breast cancer patients. A retrospective analysis of 49 out of 100 patients enrolled in a longitudinal prospective study at a Midwestern breast center evaluates: (1) time required for completion of bilateral limb measurements and Lymphedema Breast Cancer Questionnaire (LBCQ); (2) referral to LE management with limb volume increase (LVI) and/or LBCQ symptoms; and (3) cost of LE management at lower LVI (≥5%–≤10%) versus traditional (≥10%). Findings revealed a visit timeframe mean of 40.3 min (range = 25–60); 43.6% of visits were ≤30-min timeframe. Visit and measurement times decreased as clinic staff gained measurement experience; measurement time mean was 17.9 min (range = 16.9–18.9). LBCQ symptoms and LVI were significantly (p < 0.001) correlated to LE referral; six of the nine patients referred (67%) displayed both LBCQ symptoms/LVI. Visits with no symptoms reported did not result in referral, demonstrating the importance of using both indicators when assessing early LE. Lower threshold referral provides compelling evidence of potential cost savings over traditional threshold referral with reported costs of: $3755.00 and $6353.00, respectively (40.9% savings). View Full-Text
Keywords: lymphedema; surveillance; cost; referral lymphedema; surveillance; cost; referral
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Chance-Hetzler, J.; Armer, J.; Van Loo, M.; Anderson, B.; Harris, R.; Ewing, R.; Stewart, B. Prospective Lymphedema Surveillance in a Clinic Setting. J. Pers. Med. 2015, 5, 311-325.

AMA Style

Chance-Hetzler J, Armer J, Van Loo M, Anderson B, Harris R, Ewing R, Stewart B. Prospective Lymphedema Surveillance in a Clinic Setting. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2015; 5(3):311-325.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chance-Hetzler, Janet, Jane Armer, Maggie Van Loo, Blake Anderson, Robin Harris, Rebecca Ewing, and Bob Stewart. 2015. "Prospective Lymphedema Surveillance in a Clinic Setting" Journal of Personalized Medicine 5, no. 3: 311-325.

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop