The improvement in the life expectancy of women with breast cancer raises important questions about how to improve the quality of life for women sustaining complications of breast cancer treatment. In particular, attention to common problems, such as arm edema, is of critical importance. We reviewed published breast cancer guidelines and literature identified via MEDLINE(R) searches in an effort to summarize the research literature pertinent to management of breast cancer-related arm edema, including incidence, prevalence, and timing; risk factors; morbidity; prevention; diagnosis; and efficacy of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions. We found that arm edema is a common complication of breast cancer therapy that can result in substantial functional impairment and psychological morbidity. The risk of arm edema increases when axillary dissection and axillary radiation therapy are used. Recommendations for preventive measures, such as avoidance of trauma, are available, but these measures have not been well studied. Nonpharmacologic treatments, such as massage and exercise, have been shown to be effective therapies for lymphedema, but the effect of pharmacologic interventions remains uncertain. Comparing results across studies is complicated by the fact that the definitions of interventions and measures of outcomes and risk stratification vary substantially among studies. As arm edema becomes more prevalent with the increasing survival of breast cancer patients, further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of preventive strategies and therapeutic interventions.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend advanced care planning for terminally ill patients with <1 year to live. Few data are available regarding when physicians and their terminally ill patients typically discuss end‐of‐life issues. METHODS: A national survey was conducted of physicians caring for cancer patients about timing of discussions regarding prognosis, do not resuscitate (DNR) status, hospice, and preferred site of death with their terminally ill patients. Logistic regression was used to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with earlier discussions. RESULTS: Among 4074 respondents, 65% would discuss prognosis “now” (defined as patient has 4 months to 6 months to live, asymptomatic). Fewer would discuss DNR status (44%), hospice (26%), or preferred site of death (21%) immediately, with most physicians waiting for patient symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. In multivariate analyses, younger physicians more often discussed prognosis, DNR status, hospice, and site of death “now” (all P < .05). Surgeons and oncologists were more likely than noncancer specialists to discuss prognosis “now” (P = .008), but noncancer specialists were more likely than cancer specialists to discuss DNR status, hospice, and preferred site of death “now” (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians report they would not discuss end‐of‐life options with terminally ill patients who are feeling well, instead waiting for symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. More research is needed to understand physicians' reasons for timing of discussions and how their propensity to aggressively treat metastatic disease influences timing, as well as how the timing of discussions influences patient and family experiences at the end of life. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.