Original research| Volume 100, ISSUE 2, P315-326, February 2019

Intra- and Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of a New Tool for Assessment of Breast Cancer–Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity

Published:October 03, 2018DOI:



      The goal of this study was to develop and assess intra- and interrater reliability and validity of a clinical evaluation tool for breast cancer–related lymphedema, for use in the context of outcome evaluation in clinical trials.


      Blinded repeated measures observational study.


      Outpatient research laboratory.


      Breast cancer survivors with and without lymphedema (N=71).


      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measure

      The assessment of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the Breast Cancer–Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity (CLUE) standardized clinical evaluation tool.


      Intrarater reliability for the CLUE tool was ICC: 0.88 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.71-0.96). Interrater reliability for the CLUE tool was ICC: 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95). Concurrent validity of the CLUE score (Pearson r) was 0.79 with perometric interlimb difference and 0.53 with the Norman lymphedema overall score.


      The CLUE tool shows excellent inter- and intrarater reliability. The overall CLUE score for the upper extremity also shows moderately strong concurrent validity with objective and subjective measures. This newly developed clinical, physical assessment of upper extremity lymphedema provides standardization and a single score that accounts for multiple constructs. Next steps include evaluation of sensitivity to change, which would establish usefulness to evaluate intervention efficacy.


      List of abbreviations:

      BCRL (breast cancer–related lymphedema), BIS (bioimpedance spectroscopy), 95% CI (95% confidence interval), CLUE (Breast Cancer–related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity), CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Goker M.
        • Devoogdt N.
        • Van de Putte G.
        • et al.
        Systematic review of breast cancer related lymphoedema: making a balanced decision to perform an axillary clearance.
        Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2013; 5: 106
        • Ahmed R.L.
        • Prizment A.
        • Lazovich D.
        • Schmitz K.H.
        • Folsom A.R.
        Lymphedema and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: the Iowa Women’s Health Study.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 5689-5696
        • Heiney S.P.
        • McWayne J.
        • Cunningham J.E.
        • et al.
        Quality of life and lymphedema following breast cancer.
        Lymphology. 2007; 40: 177
        • Paskett E.D.
        • Dean J.A.
        • Oliveri J.M.
        • Harrop J.P.
        Cancer-related lymphedema risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and impact: a review.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 3726
        • Shih Y.C.
        • Xu Y.
        • Cormier J.N.
        • et al.
        Incidence, treatment costs, and complications of lymphedema after breast cancer among women of working age: a 2-year follow-up study.
        J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 2007
        • Moffatt C.
        • Franks P.
        • Doherty D.
        • et al.
        Lymphoedema: an underestimated health problem.
        QJM. 2003; 96: 731-738
        • Basta M.N.
        • Fox J.P.
        • Kanchwala S.K.
        • et al.
        Complicated breast cancer–related lymphedema: evaluating health care resource utilization and associated costs of management.
        Am J Surg. 2016; 211: 133-141
        • Hayes S.
        • Janda M.
        • Cornish B.
        • Battistutta D.
        • Newman B.
        Lymphedema secondary to breast cancer: how choice of measure influences diagnosis, prevalence, and identifiable risk factors.
        Lymphology. 2008; 41: 18-28
        • Oremus M.
        • Walker K.
        • Dayes I.
        • Raina P.
        Diagnosis and treatment of secondary lymphedema.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD2010
        • O'Toole J.
        • Jammallo L.S.
        • Skolny M.N.
        • et al.
        Lymphedema following treatment for breast cancer: a new approach to an old problem.
        Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013; 88: 437-446
        • Levenhagen K.
        • Davies C.
        • Perdomo M.
        • Ryans K.
        • Gilchrist L.
        Diagnosis of upper-quadrant lymphedema secondary to cancer: clinical practice guideline from the oncology section of APTA.
        Rehabil Oncol. 2017; 35: E1-E18
        • Czerniec S.A.
        • Ward L.C.
        • Lee M.J.
        • Refshauge K.M.
        • Beith J.
        • Kilbreath S.L.
        Segmental measurement of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema using perometry and bioimpedance spectroscopy.
        Support Care Cancer. 2011; 19: 703-710
        • Ward L.C.
        • Czerniec S.
        • Kilbreath S.L.
        Quantitative bioimpedance spectroscopy for the assessment of lymphoedema.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009; 117: 541-547
        • Cornish B.H.
        • Chapman M.
        • Hirst C.
        • et al.
        Early diagnosis of lymphedema using multiple frequency bioimpedance.
        Lymphology. 2001; 34: 2-11
        • Smoot B.J.
        • Wong J.F.
        • Dodd M.J.
        Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of clinical measures of breast cancer–related lymphedema: area under the curve.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 603-610
        • Perdomo M.
        • Davies C.
        • Levenhagen K.
        • Ryans K.
        Breast Cancer EDGE Task Force outcomes: assessment measures of secondary lymphedema in breast cancer survivors.
        Rehabil Oncol. 2014; 32: 22-35
        • Ancukiewicz M.
        • Miller C.L.
        • Skolny M.N.
        • et al.
        Comparison of relative versus absolute arm size change as criteria for quantifying breast cancer-related lymphedema: the flaws in current studies and need for universal methodology.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 135: 145-152
        • Ancukiewicz M.
        • Russell T.A.
        • Otoole J.
        • et al.
        Standardized method for quantification of developing lymphedema in patients treated for breast cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 79: 1436-1443
        • Zuther J.E.
        • Norton S.
        Lymphedema management: the comprehensive guide for practitioners.
        3rd ed. Theme Medical Publishers, New York2013
        • Hidding J.T.
        • Viehoff P.B.
        • Beurskens C.H.
        • van Laarhoven H.W.
        • Nijhuis-van der Sanden M.W.
        • van der Wees P.J.
        Measurement properties of instruments for measuring of lymphedema: systematic review.
        Phys Ther. 2016; 96: 1965-1981
        • International Society of Lymphology
        The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2013 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology.
        Lymphology. 2013; 46: 1-11
        • National Cancer Institute
        Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0.
        Department of Health and Human Services NIoH, National Cancer Institute, Washington, DC2009
        • Foldi M.
        • Foldi E.
        • StroBenreuther R.
        • Kubik S.
        Foldi’s textbook of lymphology for physicians and lymphedema therapists.
        Urban and Fischer Verlagm, Munich, Germany2012
        • Foldi M.
        • Foldi E.
        • Kubik S.
        Textbook of lymphology for physicians and lymphedema therapists.
        Urban and Fischer, Munich, Germany2003
        • Labs K.H.
        • Tschoepl M.
        • Gamba G.
        • Aschwanden M.
        • Jaeger K.A.
        The reliability of leg circumference assessment: a comparison of spring tape measurements and optoelectronic volumetry.
        Vasc Med. 2000; 5: 69-74
        • Stanton A.W.
        • Northfield J.W.
        • Holroyd B.
        • Mortimer P.S.
        • Levick J.R.
        Validation of an optoelectronic limb volumeter (perometer).
        Lymphology. 1997; 30: 77-97
        • Tierney S.
        • Aslam M.
        • Rennie K.
        • Grace P.
        Infrared optoelectronic volumetry, the ideal way to measure limb volume.
        Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1996; 12: 412-417
        • Norman S.A.
        • Miller L.T.
        • Erikson H.B.
        • Norman M.F.
        • McCorkle R.
        Development and validation of a telephone questionnaire to characterize lymphedema in women treated for breast cancer.
        Phys Ther. 2001; 81: 1192-1205
        • Sanderson J.
        • Tuttle N.
        • Box R.
        • Reul-Hirche H.M.
        • Laakso E.L.
        The Pitting Test; an investigation of an unstandardized assessment of lymphedema.
        Lymphology. 2015; 48: 175-183
      1. Ball J.W. Dains J.E. Flynn J.A. Solomon B.S. Stewart R.W. Seidel’s guide to physical examination. 8th ed. Elsevier Mosby, St Louis2015
        • Brodovicz K.G.
        • McNaughton K.
        • Uemura N.
        • Meininger G.
        • Girman C.J.
        • Yale S.H.
        Reliability and feasibility of methods to quantitatively assess peripheral edema.
        Clin Med Res. 2009; 7: 21-31
        • Fleiss J.L.
        • Levin B.
        • Paik M.C.
        Statistical methods for rates and proportions.
        3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken2003
        • Giraudeau B.
        Negative values of the intraclass correlation coefficient are not theoretically possible.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1996; 49: 1205-1206
        • Cicchetti D.V.
        Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.
        Psychol Assess. 1994; 6: 284-290
        • Sander A.P.
        • Hajer N.M.
        • Hemenway K.
        • Miller A.C.
        Upper-extremity volume measurements in women with lymphedema: a comparison of measurements obtained via water displacement with geometrically determined volume.
        Phys Ther. 2002; 82: 1201
        • Deltombe T.
        • Jamart J.
        • Recloux S.
        • et al.
        Reliability and limits of agreement of circumferential, water displacement, and optoelectronic volumetry in the measurement of upper limb lymphedema.
        Lymphology. 2007; 40: 26
        • Chen Y.W.
        • Tsai H.J.
        • Hung H.C.
        • Tsauo J.Y.
        Reliability study of measurements for lymphedema in breast cancer patients.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 87: 33-38
        • Gjorup C.
        • Zerahn B.
        • Hendel H.W.
        Assessment of volume measurement of breast cancer-related lymphedema by three methods: circumference measurement, water displacement, and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry.
        Lymphat Res Biol. 2010; 8: 111-119
        • Taylor R.
        • Jayasinghe U.W.
        • Koelmeyer L.
        • Ung O.
        • Boyages J.
        Reliability and validity of arm volume measurements for assessment of lymphedema.
        Phys Ther. 2006; 86: 205
        • Czerniec S.
        • Ward L.
        • Refshauge K.
        • et al.
        Assessment of breast cancer-related arm lymphedema—comparison of physical measurement methods and self-report.
        Cancer Investig. 2010; 28: 54-62
        • Aaronson N.
        • Alonso J.
        • Burnam A.
        • et al.
        Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.
        Qual Life Res. 2002; 11: 193-205
        • Lohr K.N.
        • Aaronson N.K.
        • Alonso J.
        • et al.
        Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria.
        Clin Ther. 1996; 18: 979-992
        • Kirshner B.
        • Guyatt G.
        A methodological framework for assessing health indices.
        J Chronic Dis. 1985; 38: 27-36
        • van Riel P.L.
        The development of the disease activity score (DAS) and the disease activity score using 28 joint counts (DAS28).
        Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014; 32: S-65-S-74
        • Miller C.L.
        • Specht M.C.
        • Horick N.
        • et al.
        A novel, validated method to quantify breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) following bilateral breast surgery.
        Lymphology. 2013; 46: 64-74