Risk prediction models for breast cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:5
|
作者
Shen, Aomei [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Wei, Xiaoxia [2 ,3 ]
Zhu, Fei [4 ]
Sun, Mengying [4 ]
Ke, Sangsang [4 ]
Qiang, Wanmin [1 ]
Lu, Qian [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Tianjin Med Univ Canc Inst & Hosp, Dept Nursing, Huanhuxi Rd, Tianjin, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Univ, Sch Nursing, Div Med & Surg Nursing, 38 Xueyuan Rd, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Peking Univ, Hlth Sci Ctr Evidence Based Nursing, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Hebei Univ, Sch Nursing, 342 Yuhua East Rd, Baoding, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Breast cancer; Lymphedema; Prediction model; Systematic review; Risk; ARM LYMPHEDEMA; SCORING SYSTEM; DIAGNOSIS; PROGNOSIS; DISSECTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejon.2023.102326
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To review and critically evaluate currently available risk prediction models for breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, SinoMed, WangFang Data, VIP Database were searched from inception to April 1, 2022, and updated on November 8, 2022. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability. Meta-analysis of AUC values of model external validations was performed using Stata 17.0. Results: Twenty-one studies were included, reporting twenty-two prediction models, with the AUC or C-index ranging from 0.601 to 0.965. Only two models were externally validated, with the pooled AUC of 0.70 (n = 3, 95%CI: 0.67 to 0.74), and 0.80 (n = 3, 95%CI: 0.75 to 0.86), respectively. Most models were developed using classical regression methods, with two studies using machine learning. Predictors most frequently used in included models were radiotherapy, body mass index before surgery, number of lymph nodes dissected, and chemotherapy. All studies were judged as high overall risk of bias and poorly reported. Conclusions: Current models for predicting BCRL showed moderate to good predictive performance. However, all models were at high risk of bias and poorly reported, and their performance is probably optimistic. None of these models is suitable for recommendation in clinical practice. Future research should focus on validating, optimizing, or developing new models in well-designed and reported studies, following the methodology guidance and reporting guidelines.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Effects of manual lymphatic drainage on breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Huang, Tsai-Wei
    Tseng, Sung-Hui
    Lin, Chia-Chin
    Bai, Chyi-Huey
    Chen, Ching-Shyang
    Hung, Chin-Sheng
    Wu, Chih-Hsiung
    Tam, Ka-Wai
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 11
  • [32] Conservative Intervention Strategies for Adult Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
    Lytvyn, Lyubov
    Zeraatkar, Dena
    Anbari, Allison B.
    Ginex, Pamela K.
    Zoratti, Michael J.
    Niburski, Kacper
    Sadeghirad, Behnam
    Siedler, Madelin
    Thabane, Lehana
    Morgan, Rebecca L.
    [J]. ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM, 2020, 47 (05) : E171 - E189
  • [33] Resistance exercise and breast cancer–related lymphedema—a systematic review update and meta-analysis
    Timothy Hasenoehrl
    Stefano Palma
    Dariga Ramazanova
    Heinz Kölbl
    Thomas E. Dorner
    Mohammad Keilani
    Richard Crevenna
    [J]. Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020, 28 : 3593 - 3603
  • [34] Effects of acupuncture on breast cancer-related lymphoedema: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yu, Shibo
    Zhu, Lizhe
    Xie, Peiling
    Jiang, Siyuan
    Yang, Zongbo
    He, Jianjun
    Ren, Yu
    [J]. EXPLORE-THE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND HEALING, 2020, 16 (02) : 97 - 102
  • [35] Radiation therapy targets and the risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and network meta-analysis (vol 162, pg 201, 2017)
    Shaitelman, Simona F.
    Chiang, Yi-Ju
    Griffin, Kate D.
    De Snyder, Sarah M.
    Smith, Benjamin D.
    Schaverien, Mark V.
    Woodward, Wendy A.
    Cormier, Janice N.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 162 (02) : 217 - 217
  • [36] Patient education for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review
    Perdomo, Marisa
    Davies, Claire
    Levenhagen, Kimberly
    Ryans, Kathryn
    Gilchrist, Laura
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER SURVIVORSHIP, 2023, 17 (02) : 384 - 398
  • [37] Prevalence and risk factors of cancer-related fatigue: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ma, Yuxia
    He, Bo
    Jiang, Mengyao
    Yang, Yanlin
    Wang, Chenxia
    Huang, Can
    Han, Lin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2020, 111
  • [38] Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema and Resistance Exercise: A Systematic Review
    Nelson, Nicole L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 2016, 30 (09) : 2656 - 2665
  • [39] Efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression on breast cancer-related upper limb lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis in clinical studies
    Hou, Shengqun
    Li, Yun
    Lu, Weiwu
    Zhang, Xiaoju
    Luo, Huiyu
    Qiu, Jiajia
    Lu, Zhenqi
    [J]. GLAND SURGERY, 2024, 13 (08) : 1358 - 1369
  • [40] The effect of prophylactic lymphovenous anastomosis and shunts for preventing cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jorgensen, Mads G.
    Toyserkani, Navid M.
    Sorensen, Jens A.
    [J]. MICROSURGERY, 2018, 38 (05) : 576 - 585