Elsevier

Gynecologic Oncology

Volume 160, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages 625-632
Gynecologic Oncology

Review Article
Standardization of lower extremity quantitative lymphedema measurements and associated patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.10.026Get rights and content

Highlights

  • NCI assembled cancer experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science of lymphedema evaluation in gynecologic cancers.

  • Standardization of lymphedema measurements and patient reported outcomes may redefine optimal treatment strategies.

  • The goal of the meeting was optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing multisite gynecologic clinical trials.

Abstract

Practice changing standardization of lower extremity lymphedema quantitative measurements with integrated patient reported outcomes will likely refine and redefine the optimal risk-reduction strategies to diminish the devastating limb-related dysfunction and morbidity associated with treatment of gynecologic cancers. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Division of Cancer Prevention brought together a diverse group of cancer treatment, therapy and patient reported outcomes experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science in lymphedema evaluation with the potential goal of incorporating new strategies for optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing gynecologic clinical trials.

Introduction

Lower extremity lymphedema (LEL) is an abnormal accumulation of fluid, which in gynecologic cancers occurs below the navel and can involve the bilateral legs and feet, the lower abdomen, bilateral hip area and genitals. LEL is a multifaceted disease of waxing and waning nature requiring quantitative objective measurements and qualitative subjective measurements, in addition to potential known risk factors (i.e., body mass index [BMI], age, race, and presence of pre-clinical lymphedema [LE]) and treatment factors (i.e., sentinel lymph node [SNL} dissection versus lymphadenectomy [LD], +/− radiation therapy, and +/− chemotherapy) for full assessment.

Lack of standardization regarding the definition and quantification of LE has been an ongoing barrier limiting the ability to move knowledge in this field forward [1]; however, advancing understanding is critical due to the potential for progression. Given the non-linear relationship between symptoms and severity of LE, even those with minimal early swelling may be symptomatic, leading to increased morbidity and a costly burden on both patients and the healthcare system.

There has been more research on post-operative LE related to breast cancer compared to gynecologic cancers. Therefore, the incidence of LEL has been under-recognized with comparatively limited data on the physical and emotional impact of LEL [2]. However, many gynecologic cancer survivors are living with discomfort, disfigurement, disruption of activities, and diminished quality of life because of LEL. For some, this is further compounded by recurrent infections and hospitalizations that lead to the degradation of a patient's condition and eventual disability.

The ability to differentiate swelling from multiple pre-operative cofounders (i.e., obesity, venous stasis or insufficiency) and normal post-surgical swelling from the signs or symptoms of developing LE is critical to the proper assessment of LEL. To avoid the overestimation of LE incidence and diminish the risk of post-operative swelling being attributed to LE, a designated time period after surgery (i.e., three months) should not be factored into the LE analysis. In the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 244, the Lymphedema and Gynecologic Cancer Study (The LEG Study), a multi-institutional study of 1054 women newly diagnosed with endometrial, cervical, and vulvar cancer who received surgery with a lymphadenectomy (LD) as primary intervention, LEL was greatest in the 4–6 weeks post-operative period, however, peak LEL appeared to be from 6 to 12 months and then taper through 2 years [3]. Although peak incidence of LEL may be six to twelve months, clinical trials should collect data for at least an 18–24 months post-surgery for complete assessment.

Section snippets

Measurement of lower extremity lymphedema

Four techniques have most often been employed to measure LE: (1) circumferential measurements (2) perometry, (3) water displacement, and (4) bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), with perometry and BIS largely restricted to the upper extremities in widespread usage thus far. Water displacement, due to impracticality and potential for imprecision, has largely been replaced by circumferential measurements via tape measures. However, these measurements can be imprecise and present challenges when

Objective measurement: bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) and emerging technologies

Over the past three decades, BIS has increasingly been used to screen for breast-cancer-related LE [5]. The National Lymphedema Network [6] position paper on screening and measurement for early detection of breast-cancer-related LE supports the use of BIS as an alternative to circumferential tape measurements. Yet, the Breast Cancer Evaluation Database to Guide Effectiveness Task Force rated BIS, circumference measurement, and water displacement each as Level 4 (highly recommended) due to good

SLNB —value in gynecologic cancer

At the core of advancing prevention is the need to evaluate the benefits and risks of SLNB in both cervical and endometrial cancer. Based on our current knowledge, we must investigate whether SLNB can become the standard of care by improving quality of life without impacting recurrence or survival.

Typically, patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and are at low risk for lymph node metastasis. The primary role of lymphadenectomy (LD) in the treatment of

Patient-reported outcome assessment tools

In addition to quantitative measurements, physical examination, symptoms, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) all contribute to the initial diagnosis and progression of LE.

For a PRO instrument to be effective, it must be brief, simple to complete, easy to score, and cover content consistent with clinical understanding of the signs and symptoms commonly reported in patients with LEL.

The Lymphedema Symptom Intensity and Distress Survey-Lower Limb (LSIDS-L) is a brief assessment tool that evolved

Summary and future goals

Research to date and the practical clinical experience of experts in attendance at the workshop, points strongly toward the need for standardization of optimal LEL quantitative measurements and baseline measurements prior to surgical intervention, as well as, the integration of PROs into gynecologic oncology protocols. Findings across sites and studies show potential for (a) improvements in protocol adherence and patient compliance to protocol measurements, (b) pre-operative baseline

Author contributions

Study concept and design: All authors.

Provision of materials or patients: All authors.

Acquisition of data: All authors.

Analysis and interpretation of data: All authors.

Manuscript writing: All authors.

Critical review of the manuscript: All authors.

Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Financial support

The National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention provided the financial support for the workshop meeting and preparation of the article.

Declaration of Competing Interest

Dr. Walker, Dr. Carlson, Dr. Carter, Dr. Covens, Dr. Tanner, Dr. Amer, Dr. Hayes, Dr. Lopez-Acevedo, Dr. Davidson, Dr. Schaverien, Dr. Ghamande, Dr. Cheville, Dr. Yost, Dr. Schmitz, Dr.Ford and Michael Bernas report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Russo and Dr. McCaskill-Steven report grants from government to support this workshop. Dr. Ward reports personal fees from Impedimed Inc., outside the submitted work. Dr. Ridner reports grants from Impedimed, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Taghian

References (44)

  • G.K. Lennox et al.

    Can sentinel lymph node biopsy replace pelvic lymphadenectomy for early cervical cancer?

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2017)
  • D. Basaran et al.

    Sentinel lymph node mapping alone compared to more extensive lymphadenectomy in patients with uterine serous carcinoma

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2020)
  • J.A. Ducie et al.

    Comparison of a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm and comprehensive lymphadenectomy in the detection of stage IIIC endometrial carcinoma at higher risk for nodal disease

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2017)
  • F. Multinu et al.

    Role of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer with nonbulky lymph node metastasis: comparison of comprehensive surgical staging and sentinel lymph node algorithm

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2019)
  • B.A. Schlappe et al.

    Multicenter study comparing oncologic outcomes after lymph node assessment via a sentinel lymph node algorithm versus comprehensive pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in patients with serous and clear cell endometrial carcinoma

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2020)
  • E.C. Rossi et al.

    A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study

    Lancet Oncol.

    (2017)
  • J. Carter et al.

    A pilot study using the gynecologic cancer lymphedema questionnaire (GCLQ) as a clinical tool to identify lower extremity lymphedema in gynecologic cancer survivors

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2010)
  • J. Carter et al.

    GOG 244 - The LymphEdema and Gynecologic cancer (LEG) study: The association between the gynecologic cancer lymphedema questionnaire (GCLQ) and lymphedema of the lower extremity (LLE)

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2019)
  • J. O’Toole et al.

    Screening for breast cancer-related lymphedema: the need for standardization

    Oncologist

    (2013)
  • C. Bankhead

    Lower leg lymphedema common after gyn surgery

    Med. Page Today

    (2018)
  • L. Ward et al.

    Assessment of bilateral limb lymphedema by bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy

    Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer

    (2011)
  • National Lymphedema Network

    Screening & early detection of breast cancer-related lymphedema

    (2011)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text