Revision of the Lymphedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire for Upper Limb Lymphedema (Lymph-ICF-UL): Reliability and Validity

Background: Lymphedema is associated with significant physical and psychosocial problems. The Lymphedema Functioning, Disability and Health questionnaire for upper limb lymphedema is a valid and reliable tool quantifying the amount of problems in functioning in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Patients suggested a revision of the scoring system to facilitate completion of the questionnaire. Therefore, adjustment of the questionnaire was carried out by implementing a numeric rating scale instead of the existing visual analog scale. Purpose of this study was to investigate reliability and validity of the revised Lymph-ICF, called the Lymph-ICF-UL. Methods and Results: Reliability and validity of the Lymph-ICF-UL were examined in 56 participants with upper limb lymphedema. Intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.79 to 0.95. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for internal consistency were higher than 0.80. Face and content validity were very good because the scoring system was clear for all participants (100%), questions were understandable for all participants (100%), and all complaints due to arm lymphedema were mentioned by 98% of the participants. Construct validity was good. Convergent validity was established since four out of five expected domains of the Lymph-ICF-UL showed a moderate correlation with expected domains of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire. There was good divergent validity because seven out of nine hypotheses assessing divergent validity were accepted. Conclusion: The Lymph-ICF-UL is a reliable and valid questionnaire using a simplified and clearer scoring procedure to assess impairments in function, activity limitations, and participation restrictions of patients with breast cancer-related arm lymphedema.status: publishe

Best-Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 2: Pain during and after Cancer Treatment

Pain during, and especially after, cancer remains underestimated and undertreated. Moreover, both patients and health care providers are not aware of potential benefits of rehabilitation strategies for the management of pain during and following cancer treatment. In this paper, we firstly provided a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence rehabilitation modalities for patients having (persistent) pain during and following cancer treatment, including educational interventions, specific exercise therapies, manual therapies, general exercise therapies and mind-body exercise therapies. Secondly, the findings were summarized from a clinical perspective and discussed from a scientific perspective. In conclusion, best evidence suggests that general exercise therapy has small pain-relieving effects. Supporting evidence for mind-body exercise therapy is available only in breast cancer patients. At this moment, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the use of specific exercises and manual therapy at the affected region for pain relief during and after cancer treatment. No clinically relevant results were found in favor of educational interventions restricted to a biomedical approach of pain. To increase available evidence these rehabilitation modalities should be applied according to, and within, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial pain management approach. Larger, well-designed clinical trials tailored to the origin of pain and with proper evaluation of pain-related functioning and the patient's pain experience are needed.status: publishe

Best-Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 2: Pain during and after Cancer Treatment

Pain during, and especially after, cancer remains underestimated and undertreated. Moreover, both patients and health care providers are not aware of potential benefits of rehabilitation strategies for the management of pain during and following cancer treatment. In this paper, we firstly provided a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence rehabilitation modalities for patients having (persistent) pain during and following cancer treatment, including educational interventions, specific exercise therapies, manual therapies, general exercise therapies and mind-body exercise therapies. Secondly, the findings were summarized from a clinical perspective and discussed from a scientific perspective. In conclusion, best evidence suggests that general exercise therapy has small pain-relieving effects. Supporting evidence for mind-body exercise therapy is available only in breast cancer patients. At this moment, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the use of specific exercises and manual therapy at the affected region for pain relief during and after cancer treatment. No clinically relevant results were found in favor of educational interventions restricted to a biomedical approach of pain. To increase available evidence these rehabilitation modalities should be applied according to, and within, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial pain management approach. Larger, well-designed clinical trials tailored to the origin of pain and with proper evaluation of pain-related functioning and the patient’s pain experience are needed

Correlation Between Clinical Assessment and Lymphofluoroscopy in Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Study of Concurrent Validity

Background: A disturbance of the superficial lymphatic system (dermal backflow) in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) can be visualized by near-infrared fluorescence imaging or lymphofluoroscopy. In clinical practice, exact measurement of the dermal backflow is difficult. The purpose of the study is to investigate the concurrent validity between the clinical assessments and the lymphofluoroscopy in patients with BCRL. Methods and Results: Forty-five patients with BCRL stage I to IIb received lymphofluoroscopy and clinical assessments of their edematous limb (pitting status, skinfold thickness, skin elasticity, water content, lymphedema volume, and extracellular fluid). The correlation between the clinical assessments and the result of the lymphofluoroscopy was determined. The best overall agreement with dermal backflow was found for the clinical assessment pitting status, skinfold thickness, and water content. Overall sensitivity was excellent for lymphedema volume (92.5%), high for skinfold thickness (86.6%) and water content (75.0%), and moderate for pitting status (67.7%). Overall specificity was excellent for skin elasticity (94.7%), high for pitting status (83.4%), and moderate for skinfold thickness (61.6%) and water content (74.8%). In the evaluation of the whole arm, measurements of the excess volume were significantly greater for patients in an advanced stage of dermal backflow in comparison with patients in an earlier stage of dermal backflow (p = 0.002). Conclusions: The clinical assessments of skinfold thickness, water content, and lymphedema volume are the most appropriate tools to detect dermal backflow according to the lymphofluoroscopic images. To confirm the absence of dermal backflow, pitting status can be recommended.status: publishe