Current diagnostic and quantitative techniques in the field of lymphedema management: a critical review.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Medical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1007/s12032-024-02472-9
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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当前淋巴水肿管理领域的诊断和定量技术:评论性综述。
淋巴水肿评估需要考虑多方面的因素,而这些因素的选择也在不断发展和涌现。本文对淋巴水肿诊断和定量测量的现状进行了批判性回顾,从传统的和新型的床边体积和液体评估工具,到先进的成像模式。在临床实施的经验支持和可行性方面,对各种模式进行了对比。手稿提出了一个网格框架,用于比较每种模式量化特定淋巴水肿特征的能力,包括分布、形态异常、组织成分和液体含量、淋巴解剖和功能、化生、临床症状以及生活质量和功能。本综述还采用了类似的框架方法来考虑评估工具对重要临床需求的支持程度,包括:(1)筛查;(2)诊断和鉴别诊断;(3)个体化治疗;以及(4)监测治疗反应。该框架强调了哪些临床需求可以通过大量的评估工具来满足,并指出了哪些临床需求很少。该框架明确了哪些工具拥有更多或更少的经验支持。该框架旨在帮助利益相关者选择适当的诊断和监测模式,衡量将工具应用于特定临床需求时的可信度,阐明诊断和定量优缺点的总体模式,并为未来的调查提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Oncology
Medical Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
259
审稿时长
1.4 months
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.
期刊最新文献
An overview on the interaction between non-coding RNAs and CTLA-4 gene in human diseases. Exploring the role of antigen-presenting cancer-associated fibroblasts and CD74 on the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumor microenvironment. Telomerase inhibition in breast cancer and breast cancer stem cells: a brief review. N6-methyladenosine RNA modification in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC): current status and future insights. Dual roles of extracellular vesicles in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: implications for disease progression and theranostic strategies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1