The primary goals of oncologic therapy are the compassionate care of cancer patients, eradication of disease, and palliation of symptoms. Advances in various targeted therapies such as highly conformal and image-guided radiotherapy techniques, sentinel lymph node dissection, and molecularly targeted agents hold the promise of allowing those goals to be reached with fewer treatment-related complications. Unfortunately, certain side effects remain problematic due to the inability to completely avoid injuring normal tissues. Lymphedema, a chronic condition that occurs as a result of the body's inability to drain lymph fluid from the tissues, is a common treatmentrelated side effect experienced by cancer patients. In this review, many of the important aspects of lymphedema with which clinicians who treat cancer patients should be familiar are outlined, including the anatomy, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of this condition. The authors also identify some of the resources available both to cancer patients with lymphedema and to the clinicians who treat them. It is hoped that this review will convey the importance of the early identification and management of this incurable disorder because this is essential to minimizing its complications.

CDT is effective in treating lymphedema. Success in girth reduction contributes to less pain. Grade is a useful indicator of severity; class is not. Increased number of treatment sessions provides marked improvements in girth, volume, and weight but result in poorer compliance. Longer latency more successfully reduces girth, volume, and pain and increases QoL. QoL and pain are improved by treatment and continue to improve after treatment has ended.

BACKGROUND. Complete decongestive therapy (CDT), including manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) is a manipulative intervention of documented benefit to patients with lymphedema (LE). Although the role of CDT for LE is well described, to the authors' knowledge there are no data regarding its efficacy for patients with LE due to tumor masses in the draining anatomic bed. Traditionally, LE therapists are wary of providing therapy to such patients with ‘malignant’ LE for fear of exacerbating the underlying cancer, and that the obstruction will render therapy less effective. In the current study, the authors' experience providing CDT for such patients is discussed. METHODS. Cancer survivors with LE were referred to therapists at 2 Atlanta‐area clinics. CDT consists of treatment (Phase 1) and maintenance phases (Phase 2). During Phase 1, the patient undergoes manipulative therapy and bandaging daily until the LE reduction plateaus; at that point, Phase 2 (self‐care) begins. At the beginning and end of Phase 1, LE is quantified and differences in girth volume calculated. The results for patients completing Phase 1 therapy for LE in the presence of locoregional masses were compared with results for patients with LE in the absence of such disease. Both volume reduction of the affected limb and number of treatments to plateau were analyzed. RESULTS. Between January 2004, and March 2007, LE of 82 limbs in 72 patients was treated with CDT and Phase 1 was completed. The median number of treatments to plateau was 12 (range, 4–23 treatments); the median limb volume reduction was 22% (range, −23 to 164%). Nineteen limbs (16 patients) with associated chest wall/axillary or pelvic/inguinal tumors had nonsignificant difference in LE reduction (P = .75) in the presence of significantly more sessions to attain plateau (P = .0016) compared with 63 limbs in 56 patients without such masses. CONCLUSIONS. Patients with LE may obtain relief with CDT regardless of whether they have locoregional disease contributing to their symptoms. However, it will likely take longer to achieve that effect. Manipulative therapy of LE should not be withheld because of persistent or recurrent disease in the draining anatomic bed. Cancer 2008. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

No abstract

No abstract