暂无摘要。

Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) values assess certain skin properties that are dependent on multiple factors but mainly on the relative amount of water content within a locally measured tissue volume. Because of the non-invasive nature of these measurements and their ease of use, the method has been widely used in various medically related applications. The goal of this paper was to review and describe the uses and findings of such TDC measurements, considering and including the wide array of medical applications. The review is in part based on information derived from an analysis of published material obtained via literature searches of four major electronic databases and, in part, based on the author\'s experience with the TDC measurement methods and their various applications and his professional experiences. The databases searched were PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL Complete. Based on the initial search criteria, a total of 1257 titles were identified. After removing duplicates and filtering according to relevancy, 160 remained for detailed further review. In some cases, the bibliography of these retrieved articles provided additional sources. The findings demonstrate multiple research and medical uses and applications of TDC measurements, focusing on detecting and quantifying localized edema and lymphedema in multiple target sites. These include the upper and lower extremities, breasts, and trunk as regions involved in medical conditions causing lymphedema. In addition, the findings suggest that TDC evaluations are a convenient, non-invasive method to study and evaluate other conditions impacting skin, including diabetes mellitus and skin wounds or ulcers. Its ability to detect aspects of tissue changes simply and rapidly at almost any anatomical location makes it a useful tool for investigating multiple dermatological conditions and their treatment as future applications of this method.

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer. We retrospectively enrolled 530 patients (mean age: 62.96 ± 12.69 years) undergoing BCS between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. During the COVID-19 pandemic, all patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were telephonically asked after surgery to provide clinical signs and symptoms attributable to postoperative breast cancer-related lymphedema of the breast (BCRL-B). Thirty-one (5.8%) patients reported breast edema and were visited to measure the tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and to assess the induration of the skin. There was a difference seen in treatment with lumpectomy + ALND performed more frequently in patients with (29%) than without (12%) BCRL-B. In the subgroup of patients with BCRL-B (n=31), significantly higher values of local total water were calculated in the nine patients who underwent Lump + ALND procedure (1.86 ± 0.48 vs. 1.48 ± 0.38; p = 0.046). Among patients with BCRL-B (n=31), in eight patients (25.8%) tissue induration measured with SkinFibroMeter was >0.100 N, thus suggesting tissue fibrosis. Cumulative survival probability at 1-year after surgery was 0.992. No statistical differences in 1-year survival after surgery were found for type of surgery (p = 0.890) or absence/presence of BCRL-B (p = 0.480). In univariate logistic regression, only lumpectomy + ALND surgery (p = 0.009) and any subsequent axillary lymph node removal surgery (p = 0.003) were associated with BCRL-B. Both of these variables were also found to be statistically significant in the multivariate regression model. Further prospective research is warranted to analyze potentential predictors of BCRL-B and to reduce/ prevent this complication.

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer among women. Radiotherapy (RT) is one of the main and primary treatment options for BC, especially in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). BC patients who underwent RT experience a wide range of symptoms, in which breast oedema and irritation of the skin take the lion\'s share. Breast oedema/lymphedema, which is also a prominent side effect after RT should be well determined in earlier settings due to the chronicity of lymphedema. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the biophysical parameters of skin on the ipsilateral (IL) and contralateral (CL) sites via Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) methods in terms of oedema and skin barrier function (SBF). The following reference points before and after the RT were measured: (R1: Pectoralis muscle, R2: Upper breast, R3: Lower breast, R4: Lateral site of the thorax). A total of 24 BC patients (mean age and BMI: 52.78 ± 9.85 years and 28.42 ± 5.64 kg/m2 ) were evaluated. In the IL site, the SBF was not found significant in R1-R3, whereas significantly lower SBF was observed in R4 after RT (t = -3.361, p = 0.003). A significant increase in TDC was observed in R2 at the 5.0 mm depth (t = -2.500, p = 0.02). We suggest that a longer period of follow-up should be carefully carried out to track changes in terms of SBF and oedema in the irradiated breast. The increased need for early detection of changes associated with breast lymphedema can be achievable via noninvasive, safe, cheap, and easily repeatable devices.

This case report describes a postmenopausal woman presenting to the breast surgery clinic with right breast enlargement, new spider veins on the chest, dyspnea, and facial swelling. She was treated for lung cancer. Imaging showed her right hilar mass causing critical superior vena cava (SVC) stenosis. She was transferred to thoracic surgery, underwent SVC stent placement, and her symptoms improved. SVC syndrome as a cause of right breast enlargement is unusual; therefore, carefully reviewing symptoms, medical history, and physical examination is crucial for diagnosis.

Breast edema most commonly occurs after breast cancer treatment involving breast-conserving therapy, although it may have a variety of other causes. As compared to research on breast cancer treatment-related lymphedema, breast edema and its objective measurement and diagnosis is far behind. Consequences of this disparity contribute to uncertainty and variability in its diagnosis, its treatment, and even the characterization of its incidence and morbidity. Moreover, consensus on a standardized definition, objective diagnostic method, and treatment techniques for breast edema has not yet been reached, making it difficult to provide appropriate guidelines with respect to its management. Given the recent rise in breast edema incidence as an outcome of the increasing use of breast-conserving therapy, this timely review examines the current state of breast edema assessment and makes a case for standardization in part via quantitative methods to diagnose and track breast edema.

Ipsilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is a well-documented finding associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Varying guidelines have been published for the management of asymptomatic patients who have a history of recent vaccination and present with incidental lymphadenopathy at screening mammography. Some experts recommend follow-up imaging, and others suggest that clinical management, rather than repeat imaging or biopsy, is appropriate. Symptomatic patients with lymphadenopathy and/or additional abnormal imaging findings should be treated differently depending on risk factors and clinical scenarios. Although ipsilateral lymphadenopathy is well documented, ipsilateral breast edema after COVID-19 vaccination has been rarely reported. The combination of ipsilateral lymphadenopathy and diffuse breast edema after COVID-19 vaccination presents a clinical management challenge because edema can obscure underlying abnormalities at imaging. For symptomatic patients with lymphadenopathy and associated breast parenchymal abnormality, prompt action is appropriate, including diagnostic evaluation and consideration of tissue sampling. This approach may prevent delays in diagnosis and treatment of patients with malignancy masked by symptoms from the vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Breast edema can arise from different etiologies; however, it is mostly seen after breast conserving surgery and/or radiotherapy. Combining breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy can cause damage to the lymphatic system and reactions to surrounding tissues, which can lead to breast edema; hereby, the breast size can increase by more than one cup size. Swelling of the breast is not the only criterion associated with breast edema. Other common criteria found in literature are peau d\'orange, heaviness of the breast, skin thickening, breast pain, redness of the skin, hyperpigmented skin pores and a positive pitting sign. Despite the benefits of breast conserving surgery, breast edema can be uncomfortable, and can negatively influence quality of life in suffering patients. In contrast to lymphedema of the arm, which is well known in clinical practice and in research, breast edema is often underestimated and far less explored in literature. Currently, many aspects still need to be reviewed.
UNASSIGNED: This masterclass aims at providing the state of the art of breast edema for all health care workers and researchers involved in the treatment and monitoring of breast cancer patients. It includes current and future perspectives on its diagnosis, longitudinal course and treatment. Furthermore, recommendations for clinical practice and future research are discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended to closely monitor those patients in whom breast edema symptoms do not decline within 6 months after termination of radiotherapy and provide them with the appropriate therapy. Since evidence concerning the treatment of breast edema is currently lacking, we recommend the complex decongestive therapy (CDT) to the utmost extent, by analogy with the lymphedema treatment of the extremities. This treatment involves skin care, exercise therapy and compression. Additionally, all patients should be informed about the normal course of breast edema development.
UNASSIGNED: A consensus should be reached among clinicians and researchers concerning the definition, assessment methods and best treatment of breast edema. Furthermore, high quality studies are necessary to prove the effectiveness of the CDT for breast edema.

Background: Many methods can quantitatively assess limb lymphedema, but methods to assess breast edema/lymphedema are quite limited. Thus, there is a need for a convenient and accurate way to quantify and track changes in this condition. Herein, breast tissue dielectric constant (TDC) values that depend on tissue water were used to obtain reference TDC values and interbreast TDC ratios. Methods and Results: TDC was measured in both breasts of 61 women who were about to undergo an ultrasound-guided diagnostic biopsy of a single mass (tumor) in 1 breast. Patient age and body mass index were (mean ± SD) 65.1 ± 11.6 (41-87 years) and 28.9 ± 5.1 (19.1-43.7 kg/m2). TDC was measured at a standardized site (12 o\'clock position) with the TDC probe placed with its outer edge at the periphery of the subareolar region. TDC values of healthy breasts versus tumor breasts showed tumor breasts 3% greater (30.4 ± 4.6 vs. 29.5 ± 4.6, p = 0.02). Patients with benign tumors (N = 33) showed no difference between breasts (30.5 ± 4.4 vs. 30.8 ± 4.6 p = 0.434) and had an interbreast TDC ratio (tumor breast/healthy breast) of 1.013 ± 0.077. Patients with malignant tumors (N = 28) had tumor breast values 5% greater (29.8 ± 4.8 vs. 28.4 ± 4.6, p = 0.018) and an interbreast ratio of 1.056 ± 0.117. The overall interbreast ratio (N = 61) was 1.033 ± 0.099. Conclusion: Breast TDC values from nonedematous breasts provide the basis for calculating potential edematous/lymphedematous threshold values based on the measured means +2.5 standard deviation (SD). Accordingly, a TDC threshold value of 41 and an interbreast ratio of 1.28 were determined. These parameters have potential applicability for early detection in at-risk patients and those suspected of having breast edema/lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: Breast lymphoedema can occur following surgical treatment for breast cancer. We investigated whether an exercise program reduced breast lymphoedema symptoms compared to a non-exercise control group.
METHODS: A single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted in which women with stable breast lymphoedema (n = 89) were randomised into an exercise (n = 41) or control (n = 47) group. The intervention comprised a 12-week combined aerobic and resistance training program, supervised weekly by an accredited exercise physiologist. All participants completed a weekly symptoms diary and were assessed monthly to ensure that there was no exacerbation of their lymphoedema. Changes in the breast were captured physically with ultrasound and bioimpedance spectroscopy and changes in symptoms were captured using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Breast Cancer (BR23) and Lymphoedema Symptom Intensity and Distress questionnaires.
RESULTS: The exercise group reported a greater reduction in breast-related symptoms than the control group, assessed by the EORTC BR23 breast symptom questions. Measures of extracellular fluid, assessed with bioimpedance spectroscopy ratio, decreased in the exercise group compared to the control group. No significant difference was detected in dermal thickness in the breast, assessed by ultrasound. Session attendance in the exercise sessions was high, with two musculoskeletal adverse events reported, but no exacerbations of lymphoedema observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined resistance and aerobic exercise training is safe for women living with breast lymphoedema. Preliminary data suggest exercise training can reduce breast lymphoedema symptoms to a greater extent than usual care.