Effectiveness of Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy in Patients with Lymphedema Resulting from Breast Cancer Treatment Regardless of Previous Lymphedema Treatment.

Decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT) has gained wide acceptance as an effective treatment for patients with lymphedema resulting from breast cancer treatment. It is unclear whether DLT is effective for patients with lymphedema who have received lymphedema treatment previously. Our purpose was to compare the effectiveness of DLT in patients who had received lymphedema treatment previously with those who had never received treatment. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 98 patients who received outpatient lymphedema therapy for upper extremity lymphedema following surgery. Seventy-two eligible patients with a breast cancer diagnosis and complete medical records were divided into two groups: group 1; previously treated (PT) patients (n = 38, 53%) had previously received lymphedema treatment, while group 2 (no PT, n = 34, 47%) had never received lymphedema treatment. The primary outcome was the percent change in volume in the lymphedematous arm, measured by perometer, after DLT treatment. The two groups did not differ significantly in age, comorbidities, body mass index, and median time from surgery to current treatment, surgical procedure, previous radiation treatment, or history of cellulitis/lymphangitis. DLT significantly reduced arm volume in both groups (group 1, p < 0.001; group 2, p = 0.003). The mean percent volume reduction did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.619). This study is the first to show that, DLT reduce limb volume significantly with post-mastectomy lymphedema, regardless of previous lymphedema therapy.

Postacute Care in Cancer Rehabilitation.

Acute care is usually associated with disease progression, treatments for cancer, and medical comorbidities. Patients with cancer may develop sudden functional deficits that require rehabilitation. Some of these patients benefit from acute rehabilitation, others benefit from subacute rehabilitation. After acute rehabilitation, continuous care for these patients has not been well described. Three studies are presented to demonstrate that cancer rehabilitation is a continuous process. Rehabilitation professionals should know how to detect fall risk, monitor symptoms, and render symptom management. Patients with cancer often require rehabilitation services during their entire disease trajectory.

Symptom distress, interventions, and outcomes of intensive care unit cancer patients referred to a palliative care consult team.

BACKGROUND: The symptom burden of intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are referred to a palliative care team (PCT) has not been characterized to the authors' knowledge, and the response of these symptoms to the palliative care intervention has not been reported. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed PCT consults for ICU patients who were seen between July 2006 and October 2007. To characterize symptom distress and outcomes in ICU patients who were referred to PCT in a cancer center, information and descriptive statistics about patients' demographics, comorbidities, PCT findings, interventions, and outcomes were obtained. The chi-square test was used to analyze ICU and PCT mortality, and the signed-rank test was used to analyze PCT interventions. RESULTS: Of 1637 PCT consults, 88 consults (5%) were from the ICU. The median patient age was 60 years (range, 22-87 years), and 41 patients (46%) were women. The types of cancers were hematologic (19 patients; 22%), gastrointestinal (19 patients; 22%), lung (18 patients; 20%), and others (24 patients; 26%). Nineteen patients were on mechanical ventilation (MV), and 24 patients were on bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP). The findings were delirium (71 patients; 81%), dyspnea (67 patients; 76%), pain (74 patients; 84%), fatigue (84 patients; 95%), and anxiety (57 patients; 65%). The interventions used were opioid management (99%), steroids (70%), antipsychotics (76%), and counseling (100%), do not resuscitate conversion (62 of 88 patients; 70%), withdrawal of MV (15 of 19 patients; 79%), and withdrawal of BIPAP (26 of 26 patients; 100%). Improvement was reported in pain (67 patients; 90%), dyspnea (60 patients; 90%), anxiety (51 patients; 80%), and delirium (31 patients; 44%). Thirty-five patients (40%) were transferred to the palliative care unit (PCU). Fifty-one ICU/PCT patients (58%) died during admission versus 130 of 1549 (8%) non-ICU PCT patients (P<.0001). Twenty-three of 35 patients who were transferred to the PCU (66%) died there versus 212 of 629 patients (34%) who were admitted to the PCU from another service (P<.0001). Thirty-seven of 88 ICU/PCT patients (42%) were discharged alive. CONCLUSIONS: ICU patients who are referred to the PCT have severe symptom distress. The PCT was able to identify multiple problems and make numerous pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic recommendations that improved these symptoms, including the participation in do not resuscitate conversion and withdrawal of MV and BIPAP. Although many patients in this population died, a significant subset, including those who were transferred to the PCU, survived to discharge.