Lymphedema is a chronic, debilitating disorder characterized by abnormal tissue swelling, adipose deposition and tissue fibrosis, resulting from disruption, blockage, or genetic abnormalities of the lymphatic system. Secondary lymphedema is an acquired lymphedema due to trauma, surgery, radiotherapy or infection among others resulting in a decreased transport capacity of the lymphatic system. This can be combined with an additional load on the lymphatic system due to obesity, venous hypertension or a wound, among others. Advances in oncologic treatment have led to an ever-increasing number of cancer survivors over time. As a result, morbidities related to this treatment (such as secondary lymphedema) are likely to increase too. Risk factors for the development of LLL after treatment for (gynaecological) cancer are: pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, the number of pelvic lymph nodes removed, adjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, increasing BMI/ BMI ≥25 kg/m², lymphocyst formation, increasing age, increasing time since surgery and insufficient physical activity level. To the investigators knowledge, no evidence exists regarding which (combination of) measuring methods are most sensitive to detect early lymphedema at the lower limbs after the treatment of cancer. Thresholds for identifying subclinical edema on one or both lower limbs are lacking. Therefore the investigators want to develop a screening set for patients at risk for developing LLL. Which measurement method (and which criterion) shows the best diagnostic accuracy in screening patients at risk for LLL after cancer treatment? And: What is the added value of combining different measurement methods in terms of diagnostic accuracy?