MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis
Journal Article

A Randomized Trial Evaluating Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Versus Tape Measurement for the Prevention of Lymphedema Following Treatment for Breast Cancer: Interim Analysis

2019
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) represents a major source of morbidity among breast cancer survivors. Increasing data support early detection of subclinical BCRL followed by early intervention. A randomized controlled trial is being conducted comparing lymphedema progression rates using volume measurements calculated from the circumference using a tape measure (TM) or bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). Methods Patients were enrolled and randomized to either TM or BIS surveillance. Patients requiring early intervention were prescribed a compression sleeve and gauntlet for 4 weeks and then re-evaluated. The primary endpoint of the trial was the rate of progression to clinical lymphedema requiring complex decongestive physiotherapy (CDP), with progression defined as a TM volume change in the at-risk arm ≥ 10% above the presurgical baseline. This prespecified interim analysis was performed when at least 500 trial participants had ≥ 12 months of follow-up. Results A total of 508 patients were included in this analysis, with 109 (21.9%) patients triggering prethreshold interventions. Compared with TM, BIS had a lower rate of trigger (15.8% vs. 28.5%, p   <  0.001) and longer times to trigger (9.5 vs. 2.8 months, p   =  0.002). Twelve triggering patients progressed to CDP (10 in the TM group [14.7%] and 2 in the BIS group [4.9%]), representing a 67% relative reduction and a 9.8% absolute reduction ( p   =  0.130). Conclusions Interim results demonstrated that post-treatment surveillance with BIS reduced the absolute rates of progression of BCRL requiring CDP by approximately 10%, a clinically meaningful improvement. These results support the concept of post-treatment surveillance with BIS to detect subclinical BCRL and initiate early intervention.