Mary Vargo, Melissa Aldrich, Paula Donahue, Emily Iker, Louise Koelmeyer, Rachelle Crescenzi, Andrea Cheville
{"title":"Current diagnostic and quantitative techniques in the field of lymphedema management: a critical review.","authors":"Mary Vargo, Melissa Aldrich, Paula Donahue, Emily Iker, Louise Koelmeyer, Rachelle Crescenzi, Andrea Cheville","doi":"10.1007/s12032-024-02472-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lymphedema evaluation entails multifaceted considerations for which options continue to evolve and emerge. This paper provides a critical review of the current status of diagnostic and quantitative measures for lymphedema, from traditional and novel bedside assessment tools for volumetric and fluid assessment, to advanced imaging modalities. Modalities are contrasted with regard to empirical support and feasibility of clinical implementation. The manuscript proposes a grid framework for comparing the ability of each modality to quantify specific lymphedema characteristics, including distribution, dysmorphism, tissue composition and fluid content, lymphatic anatomy and function, metaplasia, clinical symptoms, and quality of life and function. This review additionally applies a similar framework approach to consider how well assessment tools support important clinical needs, including: (1) screening, (2) diagnosis and differential diagnosis, (3) individualization of treatment, and (4) monitoring treatment response. The framework highlights which clinical needs are served by an abundance of assessment tools and identifies others that have problematically few. The framework clarifies which tools have greater or lesser empirical support. The framework is designed to assist stakeholders in selecting appropriate diagnostic and surveillance modalities, gauging levels of confidence when applying tools to specific clinical needs, elucidating overarching patterns of diagnostic and quantitative strengths and weaknesses, and informing future investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":18433,"journal":{"name":"Medical Oncology","volume":"41 10","pages":"241"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377676/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-024-02472-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Lymphedema evaluation entails multifaceted considerations for which options continue to evolve and emerge. This paper provides a critical review of the current status of diagnostic and quantitative measures for lymphedema, from traditional and novel bedside assessment tools for volumetric and fluid assessment, to advanced imaging modalities. Modalities are contrasted with regard to empirical support and feasibility of clinical implementation. The manuscript proposes a grid framework for comparing the ability of each modality to quantify specific lymphedema characteristics, including distribution, dysmorphism, tissue composition and fluid content, lymphatic anatomy and function, metaplasia, clinical symptoms, and quality of life and function. This review additionally applies a similar framework approach to consider how well assessment tools support important clinical needs, including: (1) screening, (2) diagnosis and differential diagnosis, (3) individualization of treatment, and (4) monitoring treatment response. The framework highlights which clinical needs are served by an abundance of assessment tools and identifies others that have problematically few. The framework clarifies which tools have greater or lesser empirical support. The framework is designed to assist stakeholders in selecting appropriate diagnostic and surveillance modalities, gauging levels of confidence when applying tools to specific clinical needs, elucidating overarching patterns of diagnostic and quantitative strengths and weaknesses, and informing future investigation.
期刊介绍:
Medical Oncology (MO) communicates the results of clinical and experimental research in oncology and hematology, particularly experimental therapeutics within the fields of immunotherapy and chemotherapy. It also provides state-of-the-art reviews on clinical and experimental therapies. Topics covered include immunobiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of malignant tumors.