Etiology and treatment of cancer-related secondary lymphedema.

Lymphedema and specifically cancer-related lymphedema is not the main focus for both patients and physicians dealing with cancer. Its etiology is an unfortunate complication of cancer treatment. Although lymphedema treatments have gained an appreciable consensus, many practitioners have developed and prefer their own specific protocols and this is especially true for conventional (manual) versus surgical treatments. This collection of presentations explores the incidence and genetics of cancer-related lymphedema, early detection and monitoring techniques, both conventional and operative treatment options, and the importance and role of exercise for patients with cancer-related lymphedema. These assembled presentations provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by cancer-related lymphedema including the latest research, treatments, and exercises available to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Secondary lymphedema from cancer therapy.

This manuscript is a summary of findings focusing on various aspects of secondary lymphedema specifically as a sequelae of treatment for cancer. The topic was addressed at a session held during the 8th International Congress on Cancer Metastasis that was unique a for the inclusion of patients with lymphedema and therapists joining physicians, healthcare professionals, and researchers in an effort to give an overview of secondary lymphedema following cancer therapy as well as highlighting the unknowns in the field. Lymphedema is defined and both diagnosis and incidence of cancer-related lymphedema are explored. Further, exploration of imaging options for lymphedema and information on the genetic research for patients with cancer-related secondary lymphedema are presented. Patient education and early detection methods are then explored followed by conservative treatment. Finally, an examination of surgical treatment methods available for patients with lymphedema is covered. Overall, this manuscript presents valuable information and updates for those not familiar with incidence, diagnosis, early detection, and rehabilitation of patients with cancer-related secondary lymphedema.

Lymphedema following cancer therapy: overview and options.

This summit focusing on lymphedema following cancer therapy was held during the 7th International Symposium on Cancer Metastasis through the Lymphovascular System. It was unique for the inclusion of patients with lymphedema joining physicians, therapists, healthcare professionals, and researchers to highlight what is known and more importantly what is unknown about the current state of research and treatment in the United States. The session opened with an introduction to lymphedema and then explored the incidence of multiple cancer-related lymphedemas, imaging tools and techniques useful for the diagnosis of lymphatic system abnormalities, and the new findings concerning the genetics of cancer-related lymphedema. It closed with a review of advocacy for patients and healthcare professionals and both conservative and surgical treatment options, followed by a panel discussion and questions. The session provided important information and updates which will be of value for improving the rehabilitation and overall support of patients with cancer-related lymphedema.

Self-care status, symptom burden, and reported infections in individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (a) to evaluate self-care, symptom burden, and reported infections among individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema; (b) to examine the differences in self-care, symptom burden, and reported infections between individuals with unilateral and those with bilateral lower-extremity primary lymphedema; and (c) to examine the associations among self-care status, symptom burden, and reported infections in individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema. DESIGN: A secondary data analysis was used. Data were collected from a cross-sectional survey study supported by the National Lymphedema Network from March 2006 through January 2010. The surveys were available both online and in hard copy in order to increase accessibility. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were conducted and associations between variables were assessed using Mann-Whitney tests and chi-square tests of independence. Multiple logistic regression was used to test for associations while controlling for potentially confounding variables. FINDINGS: A total of 803 participants reported having lower-extremity primary lymphedema. The majority of the participants were female (82.9%), White (74.2%), and from the United States (90.7%). Approximately two thirds of the respondents conducted some home daily lymphedema self-care. Over half of the respondents reported experiencing symptom burden and 44.8% reported at least one episode of infection. Compared to individuals with unilateral lower-extremity primary lymphedema, individuals with bilateral lower-extremity lymphedema were more likely to conduct skin care (p = .004), use alternative medications (p = .005), more frequently reported symptoms (p < .05), and more likely to report at least one episode of infection (p = .002). Respondents who reported use of compression garments also were less likely to have self-reported pain (p = .002), poor range of motion (p = .026), and numbness (p = .001). Participants who reported exercising also were less likely to have self-reported pain (p = .003). Participants who reported at least one episode of infection also reported experiencing more symptoms (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema experienced substantial symptom burden and infection episodes. Significant associations were identified among self-care, symptom burden, and reported infections. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings support the need for clinicians to educate patients with lower-extremity primary lymphedema regarding the importance of self-care, symptom management, and infection control. It is critically important for clinicians to evaluate symptom burden and reduce infections in individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema.

Factors Associated with Reported Infection and Lymphedema Symptoms among Individuals with Extremity Lymphedema.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine factors associated with reported infection and symptoms among individuals with extremity lymphedema. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was used. METHODS: Data were collected from a survey supported by the National Lymphedema Network from March 2006 through January 2010. A total of 1837 participants reported having extremity lymphedema. Logistic regression analyses were used. FINDINGS: Factors associated with reported infection among individuals with extremity lymphedema included male gender, decreased annual household income, decreased self-care, self-report of heaviness, and lower extremity as opposed to upper extremity. Factors associated with symptoms included infection, decreased self-care, lower knowledge level of self-care, decreased annual household income, and presence of secondary lower extremity lymphedema. CONCLUSIONS/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Select factors of income, self-care status, and site of lymphedema were associated with increased occurrence of infection and symptoms among individuals with extremity lymphedema. Longitudinal studies are needed to identify risk factors contributing to infections and symptoms in individuals with lymphedema.

Patient awareness and knowledge of breast cancer-related lymphedema in a large, integrated health care delivery system.

Breast cancer patients have voiced dissatisfaction regarding their education on breast cancer-related lymphedema risk and risk reduction strategies from their clinicians. Informing patients about lymphedema can contribute to decrease their risk of developing the condition, or among those already affected, prevent it from progressing further. In this cross-sectional study, a lymphedema awareness score was calculated based on responses to a brief telephone interview conducted among 389 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2000 to 2008 and had a previous record of a lymphedema-related diagnosis or procedure in their electronic medical record. During the telephone interview, women self-reported a lymphedema clinical diagnosis, lymphedema symptoms but no lymphedema diagnosis, or neither a diagnosis nor symptoms, and responded to questions on lymphedema education and support services as well as health knowledge. Multivariable logistic regression [odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI)] was used to determine the associations of selected sociodemographic and clinical factors with the odds of having lymphedema awareness (adequate vs. inadequate). The median (range) of the lymphedema awareness score was 4 (0-7). Compared with patients <50 years of age, patients 70+ years of age at breast cancer diagnosis had lower odds of adequate lymphedema awareness (OR 0.25; 95 % CI 0.07, 0.89), while patients 50-59 and 60-69 years had greater odds of adequate awareness although not statistically significant (OR 2.05; 95 % CI 0.88, 4.78 and OR 1.55; 95 % CI 0.60, 4.02, respectively; p for trend = 0.09). Higher educational level and greater health literacy were suggestive of adequate awareness yet were not significant. These results can help inform educational interventions to strengthen patient knowledge of lymphedema risk and risk reduction practices, particularly in an integrated health care delivery setting. With the growing population of breast cancer survivors, increasing patient awareness and education about lymphedema risk reduction and care after cancer diagnosis is warranted.

Clinician awareness and knowledge of breast cancer-related lymphedema in a large, integrated health care delivery setting.

Breast cancer survivors have reported dissatisfaction regarding their education on risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) from clinicians. We describe clinician knowledge and treatment referral of patients with BCRL among active oncologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Medical Care Program. A total of 887 oncologists, surgeons, and primary care clinicians completed a 10-minute web survey from May 2, 2010 to December 31, 2010 on BCRL knowledge, education, and referral patterns. A knowledge score of BCRL was calculated based on clinician responses. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the associations of selected covariates with BCRL knowledge score and clinician referral, respectively. Compared with primary care clinicians, oncologists had the highest mean score followed closely by surgeons (P < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, being female, an oncologist or surgeon, and recently receiving BCRL materials were each significantly associated with higher BCRL knowledge scores. About 44% of clinicians (n = 381) indicated they had ever made a BCRL referral (100% oncologists, 79% surgeons, and 36% primary care clinicians). Clinicians with a higher knowledge score were more likely to make referrals. In stratified analyses by specialty, the significant associated factors remained for primary care but became non-significant for oncology and surgery. These results can inform educational interventions to strengthen clinician knowledge of the clinical management of BCRL, especially among primary care clinicians. With the growing number of breast cancer survivors, increasing clinician education about BCRL across all specialties is warranted.

The grading of lymphedema in oncology clinical trials.

Lymphedema is a common late toxicity of cancer therapy. This article describes the rationale and process utilized by the Lymphedema Working Group for the revision and expansion of the Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 (CTC v2.0) lymphedema criteria to produce the CTC v3.0 lymphedema criteria. Established clinician-based rating scales and quantitative instruments are reviewed in this article. None of the extant rating scales have been formally validated, nor has their reliability been assessed. Drawbacks of current scales were considered in formulating CTC v3.0 criteria. Most rely exclusively on volume to diagnose and grade lymphedema. This imposes significant clinical limitations, particularly in the assessment of toxicity in oncology clinical trials. Volume-based rating scales are of little value in rating the severity of bilateral limb and nonlimb edema. Problems with nonvolumetric staging systems (eg, CTC v2.0) include insufficient detail to permit useful discrimination of severity among the majority of lymphedema patients. Technologies for objectively quantifying lymphedema have been developed and validated. Although these are briefly reviewed, it is recognized that cost and access issues limit their widespread clinical utility and, as such, were not considered in developing the CTC v3.0 criteria. The CTC v3.0 lymphedema criteria adopted several innovations. Principle among these was the decision to generate separate criteria for volumetric increase, dermal changes, and subcutaneous fibrosis. We anticipate the use of the new CTC v3.0 lymphedema criteria to begin in mid-2003 for grading the key clinical features of this disorder in oncology clinical trials. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with (1) background on the clinical features of lymphedema, (2) information on established lymphedema rating systems, (3) the consensus process and rationale of the Lymphedema Working Group, (4) the new CTC v3.0, and (5) quantitative techniques for assessment of lymphedema.

Lymphedema management.

Lymphedema, defined as the abnormal accumulation of protein rich fluid dysfunction of the lymphatic system, is a common sequela of cancer therapy. The incidence is highest among patients who have undergone resection and irradiation of a lymph node bed. Recently, increased attention has been focused on the modification of anticancer therapies in an effort to minimize lymphatic compromise. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is an example of a surgical procedure developed to preserve lymphatic function. Concurrent with the development of less invasive treatments, the field of lymphedema management has evolved rapidly over the past decade. Combined manual therapy, often referred to as complex decongestive physiotherapy (CDP), has emerged as the standard of care. CDP combines compression bandaging, manual lymphatic drainage (a specialized massage technique), exercise, and skin care with extensive patient education. Case series collectively describing a mean 65% volume reduction in over 10,000 patients attest its efficacy. Pneumatic compression pumps were historically widely used to control lymphedema. Their use as an isolated treatment modality is now rare. Reliance on pumps diminished with the recognition that they may exacerbate truncal and genital lymphedema, as well as injure peripheral lymphatics when applied at high pressures. Many noncompressive approaches, particularly the use of benzopyrone medications and liposuction, continue to be used abroad.