The surgical treatment of lymphedema: a systematic review of the contemporary literature (2004-2010).

PURPOSE: A systematic review of the literature was performed to examine contemporary peer-reviewed literature (2004-2010) evaluating the surgical treatment of lymphedema. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 11 major medical indices was performed. Selected articles were sorted to identify those related to the surgical treatment of lymphedema. Extracted data included the number of patients, specific surgical procedure performed, length of follow-up, criteria for defining lymphedema, measurement methods, volume or circumference reduction, and reported complications. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria; procedures were categorized as excisional procedures (n = 8), lymphatic reconstruction (n = 8), and tissue transfer (n = 4). The reported incidence of volume reduction of lymphedema in these studies varied from 118% reduction to a 13% increase over the follow-up intervals ranging from 6 months to 15 years. The largest reported reductions were noted after excisional procedures (91.1%), lymphatic reconstruction (54.9%), and tissue transfer procedures (47.6%). Procedure complications were rarely reported. CONCLUSIONS: A number of surgical approaches have demonstrated beneficial effects for select patients with lymphedema. Most of these reports, however, are based on small numbers of patients, use nonstandardized or inconsistent measurement techniques, and lack long-term follow-up. The proposed benefits of any surgical approach should be evaluated in the context of the potential morbidity to the individual patient and the availability of surgical expertise. In addition, although these surgical techniques have shown promising results, nearly all note that the procedures do not obviate the need for continued use of conventional therapies, including compression, for long-term maintenance.

Management of local-regional recurrence following immediate breast reconstruction in patients with early breast cancer treated without postmastectomy radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Young age is an independent risk factor for local-regional recurrence after mastectomy in patients with T1/T2 tumors with zero or one to three positive lymph nodes. The authors evaluated the current incidence and management of local-regional recurrence after immediate breast reconstruction in patients with T1/T2 tumors and zero to three positive lymph nodes who did not receive postmastectomy radiotherapy. METHODS: Clinical and pathologic factors were identified for 495 patients with T1/T2 tumors and zero to three positive lymph nodes who were treated with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction between 1997 and 2002 and did not receive primary systemic chemotherapy or postmastectomy radiation therapy. RESULTS: Autologous tissue-based reconstruction was performed in 70 percent of patients, and 30 percent had tissue expander placement. At a median follow-up of 7.5 years, local-regional recurrence had occurred in 16 patients (3.2 percent). Independent predictors of local-regional recurrence were age 40 years or less, estrogen receptor-negative tumors, and T2 (versus T1) tumors (p < 0.05). Multimodality therapy was utilized for all 16 patients with local-regional recurrence. Nine patients (56.3 percent) who had an isolated local-regional recurrence had a 100 percent local control rate and were treated with curative intent. The 10-year overall survival rate for patients with an isolated local-regional recurrence (87.5 percent) was not significantly different from that for patients without a local-regional recurrence (90.3 percent; p = 0.234). CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of postmastectomy radiation therapy in this heterogeneous patient population should be discouraged to allow more patients to undergo immediate breast reconstruction and ease the burden on plastic surgeons who have had to confront the problems of reconstruction in the face of perioperative radiation in an ever-increasing number of patients.

Trends in and outcomes from sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone vs. SLNB with axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer patients: experience from the SEER database.

BACKGROUND: Complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) remains the standard practice. As nodal surgery has long been considered a staging procedure without a clear survival benefit, the need for ALND in all patients is debatable. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in survival for patients undergoing SLNB alone versus SLNB with complete ALND. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who underwent SLNB and were found to have nodal metastases were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1998-2004). Clinicopathologic and outcomes data were examined for patients who underwent SLNB alone versus SLNB with ALND. RESULTS: We identified 26,986 patients with disease-positive lymph nodes; 4,425 (16.4%) underwent SLNB alone, and 22,561 (83.6%) underwent SLNB with ALND. Patients were significantly more likely to undergo SLNB alone if they were older (median 59 years old) or if the tumor was low grade and estrogen receptor positive. From 1998 to 2004, the proportion of patients with micrometastasis in the sentinel lymph nodes who underwent SLNB alone increased from 21.0 to 37.8% (P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 50 months, there were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) between patients who underwent SLNB alone versus complete ALND. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing trend toward omitting ALND in patients with micrometastatic nodal disease identified by SLNB. Compared with SLNB alone, completion ALND does not seem to be associated with improved survival for breast cancer patients with micrometastasis in the sentinel lymph nodes.

Present-day locoregional control in patients with t1 or t2 breast cancer with 0 and 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes after mastectomy without radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine present-day locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates to better understand the role of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in women with 0 to 3 positive lymph nodes. METHODS: Clinical and pathologic factors were identified for 1019 patients with pT1 or pT2 tumors and 0 (n = 753), 1 (n = 176), 2 (n = 69), or 3 (n = 21) positive lymph nodes treated with mastectomy without PMRT during 1997 to 2002. Total LRR rates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between subgroups by the log rank test. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.47 years, the overall 10-year LRR rate was 2.7%. The only independent predictor of LRR was younger age (P = 0.004). Patients ≤40 years old had a 10-year LRR rate of 11.3 vs. 1.5% for older patients (P < 0.0001). The 10-year rate of LRR in patients with 1 to 3 positive nodes was 4.3% (94.4% had systemic therapy), which was not significantly different from the 10-year risk of contralateral breast cancer development (6.5%; P > 0.5). Compared with the 10-year LRR rate among patients with node-negative disease (2.1%), patients with 1 positive node had a similar 10-year LRR risk (3.3%; P > 0.5), and patients with 2 positive nodes had a 10-year LRR risk of 7.9% (P = 0.0003). Patients with T2 tumors with 1 to 3 positive nodes had a 10-year LRR rate of 9.7%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T1 and T2 breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive nodes, LRR rates after mastectomy are low, with the exception of patients ≤40 years old. The indications for PMRT in patients treated in the current era should be reexamined.

Breast cancer and lymphedema: a current overview for the healthcare provider.

Lymphedema is a troublesome condition faced by many breast cancer survivors today. Since lymphedema represents a debilitating and progressive problem that is feared by most breast cancer patients and their providers, an up-to-date understanding is necessary in order to better diagnose, treat and manage these patients. The etiology of lymphedema is multifactorial and poorly understood. Although lymphedema is not clearly defined within the medical community, there are several diagnostic tools available to the clinician, of which the most widely accepted in the clinical setting are the arm circumference measurements. Misinformation has recently been conveyed regarding activity recommendations for those patients afflicted with lymphedema. These recent events highlight the critical importance of education, heightened awareness and dedicated future cooperative research in order to favorably impact on lymphedema care and the quality of life for those living with lymphedema.