A Brief Historical Perspective of Cancer Rehabilitation and Contributions From the National Institutes of Health.

People who have cancer diagnoses often need care throughout their lives through all stages of their illness. These stages include diagnosis, primary treatment, survivorship, and end of life. The management of people with cancer, now a common and chronic illness with long-term survival improving, is complex, challenging, and rapidly changing. Rehabilitation for people with cancer diagnoses is a new specialty and is charged with providing care throughout the trajectory of illness and wellness to maximize potential for function and mitigate disability. Rehabilitation interventions include the application of physical and occupational therapeutics, speech and language interventions, and physical medicine in order to help patients reach their individual goals and to promote life satisfaction. The Department of Rehabilitation in the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health has pioneered this field through research and clinical care models over the past 40 years. Staff of this department has supported clinical research investigators at the National Institutes of Health in their exploration of new treatments using chemotherapies, surgery, radiation, and psychosocial interventions. They have also engaged in research specific to rehabilitation to devise and improve functional outcome measures, design exercise interventions, devise orthotics, and prosthetic devices for adaptation to functional loss. Collectively, the staff has published widely in oncology textbooks and professional journals in order to share findings and improve the quality of cancer rehabilitation treatment across the continuum of care.

Breast cancer-related lymphedema: comparing direct costs of a prospective surveillance model and a traditional model of care.

Secondary prevention involves monitoring and screening to prevent negative sequelae from chronic diseases such as cancer. Breast cancer treatment sequelae, such as lymphedema, may occur early or late and often negatively affect function. Secondary prevention through prospective physical therapy surveillance aids in early identification and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Early intervention may reduce the need for intensive rehabilitation and may be cost saving. This perspective article compares a prospective surveillance model with a traditional model of impairment-based care and examines direct treatment costs associated with each program. Intervention and supply costs were estimated based on the Medicare 2009 physician fee schedule for 2 groups: (1) a prospective surveillance model group (PSM group) and (2) a traditional model group (TM group). The PSM group comprised all women with breast cancer who were receiving interval prospective surveillance, assuming that one third would develop early-stage BCRL. The prospective surveillance model includes the cost of screening all women plus the cost of intervention for early-stage BCRL. The TM group comprised women referred for BCRL treatment using a traditional model of referral based on late-stage lymphedema. The traditional model cost includes the direct cost of treating patients with advanced-stage lymphedema. The cost to manage early-stage BCRL per patient per year using a prospective surveillance model is $636.19. The cost to manage late-stage BCRL per patient per year using a traditional model is $3,124.92. The prospective surveillance model is emerging as the standard of care in breast cancer treatment and is a potential cost-saving mechanism for BCRL treatment. Further analysis of indirect costs and utility is necessary to assess cost-effectiveness. A shift in the paradigm of physical therapy toward a prospective surveillance model 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.