Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2021

28.11.2020 | Reconstructive Oncology

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Lymphedema: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis

verfasst von: Louise Marie Beelen, MD, Anne-Margreet van Dishoeck, PhD, Elena Tsangaris, PhD, Michelle Coriddi, MD, Joseph H. Dayan, MD, Andrea L. Pusic, MD, MHS, Anne Klassen, PhD, Dalibor Vasilic, MD, PhD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Lymphedema is a chronic and debilitating condition that affects many cancer survivors. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can give valuable insight into the impact of lymphedema on a patient’s quality of life and can play an essential role in treatment decisions. This study aims to (1) identify PROMs used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with lymphedema; and (2) assess the quality of the lymphedema-specific PROMs.

Methods

We performed a systematic search to identify articles on lymphedema, quality of life, and PROMs. An overview was created of all PROMs used to assess HRQoL in patients with lymphedema. The methodological quality of the lymphedema-specific PROMs was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria.

Results

A total of 235 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 200 described studies using one or more PROMs as an outcome measure in patients with lymphedema. The other 35 studies described the development and/or validation of a lymphedema-specific PROM. The COSMIN assessment demonstrated that none of these PROMs met all quality standards for development.

Conclusion

The use of PROMs in lymphedema is increasing; however, based on our findings, we cannot fully support the use of any of the existing instruments. A well-developed lymphedema-specific PROM, based on patient input, is needed to gain better insight into the impact of this condition, and can be used to measure the effect of possible medical and surgical treatments.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Földi M, Földi E, Strößenreuther R, Kubik S. Földi’s textbook of lymphology: for physicians and lymphedema therapists. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
2.
Rockson SG, Rivera KK. Estimating the population burden of lymphedema. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1131(1):147–154.PubMed
3.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34.
4.
Penha TRL, Botter B, Heuts EM, Voogd AC, von Meyenfeldt MF, van der Hulst RR. Quality of life in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema and reconstructive breast surgery. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32(06):484–90.PubMed
5.
Pusic AL, Cemal Y, Albornoz C, et al. Quality of life among breast cancer patients with lymphedema: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments and outcomes. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(1):83–92.PubMed
6.
Chang DW, Masia J, Garza Iii R, Skoracki R, Neligan PC. Lymphedema: surgical and medical therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3S):209S–18S.PubMed
7.
Schaverien MV, Coroneos CJ. Surgical Treatment of Lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(3):738–58.PubMed
8.
Hayes SC, Janda M, Cornish BH, Battistutta D, Newman B. Lymphedema secondary to breast cancer: how choice of measure influences diagnosis, prevalence, and identifiable risk factors. Lymphology. 2008;41(1):18–28.PubMed
9.
Cornish BH, Chapman M, Thomas BJ, Ward LC, Bunce IH, Hirst C. Early diagnosis of lymphedema in postsurgery breast cancer patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;904(1):571–5.PubMed
10.
Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167.PubMed
11.
Coriddi M, Dayan J, Sobti N, et al. Systematic review of patient-reported outcomes following surgical treatment of lymphedema. Cancers. 2020;12(3):565.PubMedCentral
12.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9, W264.
13.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Mokkink LB, De Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.PubMed
16.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): user manual. Version 1.0 2018. p. 78.
17.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):82.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Launois R, Megnigbeto AC, Pocquet K, Alliot F. A specific quality of life scale in upper limb lymphedema: the ULL-27 questionnaire. Lymphology. 2002;35(1-760):181–7.
19.
Carmeli E, Bartoletti R. Retrospective trial of complete decongestive physical therapy for lower extremity secondary lymphedema in melanoma patients. Supportive Care Cancer. 2011;19(1):141–7.
20.
Mirolo BR, Bunce IH, Chapman M, et al. Psychosocial benefits of postmastectomy lymphedema therapy. Cancer Nurs. 1995;18(3):197–205.PubMed
21.
Shi S, Lu Q, Fu MR, et al. Psychometric properties of the Breast Cancer and Lymphedema Symptom Experience Index: The Chinese version. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016;20:10–6.PubMed
22.
Augustin M, Bross F, Földi E, Vanscheidt W, Zschocke I. Development, validation and clinical use of the FLQA-l, a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with lymphedema. Vasa J Vasc Dis. 2005;34(1):31–5.
23.
Weiss J, Daniel T. Validation of the lymphedema life impact scale version 2: a condition-specific measurement tool for persons with lymphedema. Rehabil Oncol. 2018;36(1):28–36.
24.
Blome C, Augustin M, Heyer K, et al. Evaluation of patient-relevant outcomes of lymphedema and lipedema treatment: Development and validation of a new benefit tool. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47(1):100–7.PubMed
25.
Klernäs P, Kristjanson LJ, Johansson K. Assessment of quality of life in lymphedema patients: Validity and reliability of the Swedish version of the Lymphedema Quality Of Life Inventory (LQOLI). Lymphology. 2010;43(3):135–45.PubMed
26.
Williams AE, Rapport F, Russell IT, Hutchings HA. Psychometric development of the Upper Limb Lymphedema Quality of Life Questionnaire demonstrated the patient-reported outcome measure to be a robust measure for breast cancer–related lymphedema. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:61–70.PubMed
27.
De Vrieze T, Vos L, Gebruers N, et al. Revision of the Lymphedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire for Upper Limb Lymphedema (Lymph-ICF-UL): reliability and validity. Lymphatic Res Biol. 2019;17(3):347–55.
28.
Weiss J, Daniel T. Validation of the lymphedema life impact scale (LLIS): a condition-specific measurement tool for persons with lymphedema. Lymphology. 2015;48(3):128–38.PubMed
29.
Ridner SH, Dietrich MS. Development and validation of the Lymphedema Symptom and Intensity Survey-Arm. Supportive Care Cancer. 2015;23(10):3103-3112.
30.
Deng J, Ridner SH, Murphy BA, Dietrich MS. Preliminary development of a lymphedema symptom assessment scale for patients with head and neck cancer. Supportive Care Cancer. 2012;20(8):1911–8.
31.
Devoogdt N, Van Kampen M, Geraerts I, Coremans T, Christiaens MR. Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability and Health questionnaire (Lymph-ICF): reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2011;91(6):944–57.PubMed
32.
Devoogdt N, De Groef A, Hendrickx A, et al. Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire for Lower Limb Lymphoedema (Lymph-ICF-LL): reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2014;94(5):705–21.PubMed
33.
Keeley V, Crooks S, Locke J, Veigas D, Riches K, Hilliam R. A quality of life measure for limb lymphoedema (LYMQOL). J Lymphoedema. 2010;5(1):26–37.
34.
Launois R, Alliot F. Quality of life scale in upper limb lymphedema: a validation study. Lymphology. 2000;33 Suppl:266–70.
35.
Ridner SH, Doersam JK, Stolldorf DP, Dietrich MS. Development and Validation of the Lymphedema Symptom Intensity and Distress Survey-Lower Limb. Lymphatic Res Biol. 2018;16(6):538–46.
36.
Klernäs P, Johnsson A, Boyages J, Brorson H, Munnoch A, Johansson K. Test of responsiveness and sensitivity of the questionnaire “lymphedema Quality of Life Inventory”. Lymphatic Res Biol. 2018;16(3):300–8.
37.
Augustin M, Conde Montero E, Hagenström K, Herberger K, Blome C. Validation of a short-form of the Freiburg Life Quality Assessment for lymphoedema (FLQA-LS) instrument. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(6):1329–33.PubMed
38.
Klernäs P, Johnsson A, Horstmann V, Kristjanson LJ, Johansson K. Lymphedema Quality of Life Inventory (LyQLI)-Development and investigation of validity and reliability. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(2):427–39.PubMed
39.
Değirmenci B, Tüzün Ş, Of NS, Oral A, Sindel D. Reliability and validity of Turkish version of lymphedema life impact scale. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;65(2):147–53.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Haghighat S, Montazeri A, Zayeri F, Ebrahimi M, Weiss J. Psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale (LLIS, version 1) in breast cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):132.PubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Orhan C, Üzelpasaci E, Baran E, et al. The reliability and validity of the turkish version of the lymphedema life impact scale in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Cancer Nurs. 2020;43(5):375–83.PubMed
42.
Abu Sharour L. Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic version of the lymphedema life impact scale in breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2020;26(3):563–5.
43.
Kostanoglu A, Hosbay Z, Tarakci E. Lymphoedema functioning, disability and health questionnaire Turkish version: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(6):1728–32.PubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Grarup KR, Devoogdt N, Strand LI. The Danish version of Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire (Lymph-ICF) for breast cancer survivors: translation and cultural adaptation followed by validity and reliability testing. Physiother Ther Pract. 2019;35(4):327–40.
45.
Kostanoglu A, Mbata GB, Gokmen GY, Uysal O. The Lymphedema Functioning, Disability, and Health Questionnaire for Lower Limb Lymphedema: Translation, reliability, and validation study of the Turkish version. Turk J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;25(4):586–91.
46.
Wang CM, Lee SY, Hsu KF, Lin CF, Ma MC, Hsu YY. Psychometric evaluation of a Chinese version of Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire for Lower Limb Lymphoedema in women with gynaecological cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018;27(6):e12940.
47.
Bakar Y, Tugral A, Ozdemir O, Duygu E, Uyeturk U. Translation and Validation of the Turkish Version of Lymphedema quality of life tool (LYMQOL) in patients with breast cancer related lymphedema. Eur J Breast Health. 2017;13(3):123–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Borman P, Yaman A, Denizli M, Karahan S, Özdemir O. The reliability and validity of Lymphedema Quality of Life Questionnaire-Arm in Turkish patients with upper limb lymphedema related with Breast cancer. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;64(3):205–12.PubMedPubMedCentral
49.
50.
van de Pas CB, Biemans AAM, Boonen RSM. Validation of the Lymphoedema Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (LYMQOL) in Dutch patients diagnosed with lymphoedema of the lower limbs. Pblebology. 2016;31(4):257–63.
51.
Bakar Y, Tuğral A. Translation, reliability, and validation of the Turkish version of the Lymphedema Quality-of-Life tool in Turkish-speaking patients with lower limb Lymphedema. J Vasc Nurs. 2019;37(1):11–7.PubMed
52.
Borman P, Yaman A, Denizli M, Karahan S. The reliability and validity of lymphedema quality of life questionnaire-leg in Turkish patients with lower limb lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol. 2020;18(1):42–8.PubMed
53.
Duygu E, Bakar Y, Keser I. An important tool in lymphedema management: validation of Turkish version of the patient benefit index-lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol. 2020;18(1):49–55.PubMed
54.
Viehoff PB, Van Genderen FR, Wittink H. Upper limb lymphedema 27 (ULL27): Dutch translation and validation of an illness-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for patients with upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology. 2008;41(3):131–8.PubMed
55.
Fu MR, Cleland CM, Kang Y. Measuring lymphedema symptom burdens: a psychometric study. Paper presented at the The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer’s Annual Meeting (MASCC/ISOO): New York, 2012.
56.
Keeley VL, Veigas D, Crooks S, Locke J, Forrow H. The development of a condition-specific quality of life measure for lymphoedema (LYMQOL). Eur J Lymphol. 2004;12(41):36.
57.
58.
59.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.
60.
Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(4):823–37.PubMed
61.
Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX. Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ. 1986;134(8):889.PubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S217–32.PubMed
63.
Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(1):52–60.PubMed
64.
US FDA. Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Guidance for Industry. US FDA; Dec 2009.
65.
Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(8):1087–96.PubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–77.PubMed
67.
Turner RR, Quittner AL, Parasuraman BM, Kallich JD, Cleeland CS, Mayo FDAP-ROCMG. Patient-reported outcomes: instrument development and selection issues. Value Health. 2007;10 Suppl 2:S86–93.
68.
69.
Pusic AL, Cemal Y, Albornoz C, et al. Quality of life among breast cancer patients with lymphedema: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments and outcomes. J Cancer Survivorship. 2013;7(1):83–92.
70.
Cornelissen AJM, Kool M, Keuter XHA, et al. Quality of life questionnaires in breast cancer-related lymphedema patients: review of the literature. Lymphat Res Biol. 2018;16(2):134–9.PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Lymphedema: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis
verfasst von
Louise Marie Beelen, MD
Anne-Margreet van Dishoeck, PhD
Elena Tsangaris, PhD
Michelle Coriddi, MD
Joseph H. Dayan, MD
Andrea L. Pusic, MD, MHS
Anne Klassen, PhD
Dalibor Vasilic, MD, PhD
Publikationsdatum
28.11.2020
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09346-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Prognosis and Circumferential Margin in Patients with Resected Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

ASO Author Reflections

ASO Author Reflections: Which Preoperative Breast Localization Method is More Economical: Radioactive Seed or Wire-Guided Localization?

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Analysis of the Survival Impact of Postoperative Chemotherapy After Preoperative Chemotherapy and Resection for Gastric Cancer

Breast Oncology

The Role of Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score in Predicting Axillary Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Axillary Management After Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

Hepatobiliary Tumors

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.
Bildnachweise