Self-measured leg circumference for the detection of lymphedema among men with prostate cancer: a reliability study

Authors

  • Gitte Sone Larsen Danish Cancer Society National Research Center for Cancer Survivorship and Treatment Late Effects, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1347-9715
  • Sandra Jensen Danish Cancer Society National Research Center for Cancer Survivorship and Treatment Late Effects, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5365-951X
  • Annika von Heymann Danish Cancer Society National Research Center for Cancer Survivorship and Treatment Late Effects, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0900-5575
  • Bolette Skjødt Rafn Danish Cancer Society National Research Center for Cancer Survivorship and Treatment Late Effects, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8269-3100

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42249

Keywords:

Cancer-related lymphedema, prospective surveillance, home-based monitoring, leg lymphedema, psychometric properties

Abstract

Background and purpose: Early lymphedema detection is crucial to timely treatment, and home-based monitoring holds promise for early detection of leg lymphedema among at-risk cancer survivors. We developed a self-measurement protocol for home-based leg circumference measurements and tested its reliability in men with prostate cancer at risk of lymphedema.

Patients/material and methods: This cross-sectional study recruited men with prostate cancer from the Department of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. Circumference measurements were taken at four points on both legs, from which leg volume was calculated. Intrarater reliability was assessed by comparing self-measurements taken at home and in the hospital. Interrater reliability was evaluated by comparing hospital self-measurements to those of a blinded physiotherapist. Statistical power required 13 participants for the detection of a good (>0.8) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: Forty-three men were included (median age 69 [63–76] years). Intrarater reliability (n = 39) was good to excellent for six out of eight measurement points (ICC ≥ 0.79, p < 0.01) and moderate for two (ICC ≥ 0.55, p < 0.01). Intrarater reliability for leg volume was excellent (ICC ≥ 0.96, p < 0.01). Similarly, interrater reliability (n = 23) was excellent for all measurement points and leg volumes (ICC ≥ 0.91, p < 0.01). Forty-one of 43 participants performed the measurements independently, found them easy to do, and were willing to conduct self-measurements if recommended by their doctor.

Interpretation: Self-measured leg circumference among men with prostate cancer is highly reliable and acceptable. This low-cost approach for home-based monitoring for lymphedema offers potential for early detection and timely management of the condition.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

World Health Organization. Global strategy on human resources for health: Workforce 2030. World Health Organization; Geneva. 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511131

John JR, Jani H, Peters K, Agho K, Tannous WK. The effectiveness of patient-centred medical home-based models of care versus standard primary care in chronic disease management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6886.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186886 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186886

Larsen GS, Johansen C, Von Heymann A, Rafn BS. Prevalence of lymphedema symptoms across cancer diagnoses and association with de-pression, pain interference and health-related quality of life. Acta Oncol. 2025;64:87-95.

https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42203

Stout NL, Pfalzer LA, Springer B, Levy E, McGarvey CL, Danoff JV, et al. Breast cancer-related lymphedema: comparing direct costs of a prospective surveillance model and a traditional model of care. Phys Ther. 2012;92(1):152–63.

https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100167

Wong HCY, Wallen MP, Chan AW, Dick N, Bonomo P, Bareham M, et al. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidance for the prevention of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL): international Delphi consensus-based recommendations. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;68:102441.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102441 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102441

Donahue PMC, MacKenzie A, Filipovic A, Koelmeyer L. Advances in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;200(1):1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06947-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06947-7

Koelmeyer LA, Borotkanics RJ, Alcorso J, Prah P, Winch CJ, Nakhel K, et al. Early surveillance is associated with less incidence and severity of breast cancer-related lymphedema compared with a traditional referral model of care. Cancer. 2019;125(6):854–62.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31873

Rafn BS, Christensen J, Larsen A, Bloomquist K. Prospective surveillance for breast cancer-related arm lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(9):1009–26.

https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.01681 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.01681

Rafn BS, McNeely ML, Camp PG, Midtgaard J, Campbell KL. Self-measured arm circumference in women with breast cancer is reliable and valid. Phys Ther. 2019;99(2):240–53.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy117

Koelmeyer LA, Moloney E, Boyages J, Sherman KA, Dean CM. Prospective surveillance model in the home for breast cancer-related lym-phoedema: a feasibility study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;185(2):401–12.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05953-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05953-3

Rafn BS, Singh CA, Midtgaard J, Camp PG, McNeely ML, Campbell KL. Self-managed surveillance for breast cancer-related upper body issues: a feasibility and reliability study. Phys Ther. 2020;100(3):468–76.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz181 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz181

Jönsson C, Johansson K, Bjurberg M, Brogårdh C. Circumferential measurements to calculate lower limb volume in persons with lymphede-ma: what segment length is to be recommended? Lymphat Res Biol. 2023;21(3):275–82.

https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2022.0032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2022.0032

Brown JA, Olshan AF, Bae-Jump VL, Ogunleye AA, Smith S, Black-Grant S, et al. Lymphedema self-assessment among endometrial cancer survivors. Cancer Causes Control. 2024;35(5):771–85.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01838-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01838-0

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996214

Tukey J. Exploratory data analysis; Reading, MA. Addison-Wesley; 1977.

Sundhedsstyrrelsen. Social og geografisk ulighed i sundhedsydelser – Analyse af behov for, adgang til og brug af ydelser i det primære sundhedsvæsen; undhedsstyrrelsen: København. 2023. Available from: https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2023/Ulighed/Social-og-geografisk-ulighed-i-sundhedsydelser.ashx?sc_lang=da&hash=BFA5808C7F8A32B0C67BC07D1E206C71

Luo X, Chen Y, Chen J, Zhang Y, Li M, Xiong C, et al. Effectiveness of mobile health-based self-management interventions in breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(3):2853–76.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06568-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06568-0

Jönsson C, Bjurberg M, Brogårdh C, Johansson K. Test-retest reliability of volume and local tissue water measurements in lower limbs of healthy women and men. Lymphat Res Biol. 2020;18(3):261–9.

https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2019.0044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2019.0044

The International Society of Lymphology.. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 Consensus Document of the Inter-national Society of Lymphology. Lymphology. 2020;53(1):3–19.

https://doi.org/10.2458/lymph.4649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2458/lymph.4649

Chance-Hetzler J, Armer J, Van Loo M, Anderson B, Harris R, Ewing R, et al. Prospective lymphedema surveillance in a clinic setting. J Pers Med. 2015;5(3):311–25.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5030311 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5030311

Specht MC, Miller CL, Russell TA, Horick N, Skolny MN, O’Toole JA, et al. Defining a threshold for intervention in breast cancer-related lymphedema: what level of arm volume increase predicts progression? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(3):485–94.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2655-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2655-2

Borčinová M, Ragosch V, Jarkovský J, Bajsová S, Pilka R, Glickman A, et al. Challenges in lower limb lymphoedema assessment based on limb volume change: lessons learnt from the SENTIX prospective multicentre study. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;164(1):76–84.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.10.089 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.10.089

Armer JM, Ballman KV, McCall L, Armer NC, Sun Y, Udmuangpia T, et al. Lymphedema symptoms and limb measurement changes in breast cancer survivors treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and axillary dissection: results of American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1071 (Alliance) substudy. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(2):495–503.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4334-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4334-7

Carlson JW, Kauderer J, Hutson A, Carter J, Armer J, Lockwood S, et al. GOG 244-The lymphedema and gynecologic cancer (LEG) study: incidence and risk factors in newly diagnosed patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(2):467–74.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.10.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.10.009

Spillane AJ, Saw RPM, Tucker M, Dip G, Byth K, Thompson JF. Defining lower limb lymphedema after inguinal or ilio-inguinal dissection in patients with melanoma using classification and regression tree analysis. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):286–93.

https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817ed7c3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817ed7c3

Brijker F, Heijdra YF, Van Den Elshout FJ, Bosch FH, Folgering HT. Volumetric measure-ments of peripheral oedema in clinical conditions. Clin Physiol. 2000;20(1):56–61.

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2281.2000.00224.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2281.2000.00224.x

Additional Files

Published

2025-02-27

How to Cite

Larsen, G. S., Jensen, S., von Heymann, A., & Rafn, B. S. (2025). Self-measured leg circumference for the detection of lymphedema among men with prostate cancer: a reliability study. Acta Oncologica, 64, 326–330. https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42249