Search

Introduction The ano-inguinal lymphatic drainage (AILD) is located in the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the proximal medial thigh. Currently, there are no recommendations for an inclusion of the ‘true’ AILD in the clinical target volume (CTV) of definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer patients. To estimate the relevance of inguinal recurrence, we compared the incidental dose to the AILD in anal cancer (AC) patients who were treated either with Volumetric Arc Therapy – Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (VMAT-IMRT) or conventional 3D-radiation technique. Methods One VMAT-IMRT-plans and one 3D-plans were calculated on the same target volumes and identical dose prescription in ten patients. We defined the volume of the AILD on the planning CT-scans based on the information of new fluorescence methods. Furthermore, we defined several anatomical subvolumes of interest inside the AILD. We examined and compared absolute and relative dosimetric parameters of the AILD and different anatomical subunits. Results The Dmean of the AILD was 40 Gy in the 3D-group and 38 Gy in the IMRT-group. Dmean and Dmedian as well as the V30Gy of the AILD and all subvolumes of the caudal AILD were significant higher using 3D-RT compared to IMRT. Even though the absolute differences were small, in the caudal aspect of the ano-inguinal lymphatic drainage the V30Gy could be more than 10% less with VMAT-IMRT. Conclusions 3D-RT was slightly superior to IMRT in terms of dose coverage of the AILD. However, the absolute differences were very small. Some relevant caudal parts of the AILD received an insufficient dose for treating potential micrometastases. Particularly in high-risk situations, this may lead to inguinal recurrence and therefore the true deep AILD should be included into the target volume in high risk patients.

Background Physical therapy treatment of patients with lymphedema includes treatment based on the principles of ‘Complete Decongestive Therapy’ (CDT). CDT consists of the following components; skin care, manual lymphatic drainage, bandaging and exercises. The scientific evidence regarding what type of treatment is most effective is sparse. The objective of this study is to investigate whether CDT is equally effective if it includes manual lymphatic drainage or not in the treatment of arm lymphedema among patients with breast cancer. Methods/Design A randomized, single-blind, equivalence trial. A total of 160 breast cancer patients with arm lymphedema will be recruited from 3 hospitals and randomized into one of two treatment groups A: Complete Decongestive Therapy including manual drainage or B: Complete Decongestive Therapy without manual lymphatic drainage. The intervention period will be approximately 4 weeks followed by a 6 month follow-up period (7 months from baseline). Primary outcome variable: the percentage volume reduction of lymphedema (%) from baseline to 7 months. Secondary outcome variables: Differences from baseline to week 4 and from week 4 to month 7 in circumference of the arm (cm), body weight (kg), patient sensation of heaviness (scale range: 0–10), patient sensation of tension (scale range: 0–10), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L-questionnaire). All measurements are standardized and will be performed before randomization, after 4 weeks and after 7 months. Discussion This randomized controlled study seeks to provide data on an effective treatment for patients with breast cancer related arm lymphedema and which at the same time causes minimal patient inconvenience. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT02015897

Background Several conservative (i.e., nonpharmacologic, nonsurgical) treatments exist for secondary lymphedema. The optimal treatment is unknown. We examined the effectiveness of conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema, as well as harms related to these treatments. Methods We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials®, AMED, and CINAHL from 1990 to January 19, 2010. We obtained English- and non-English-language randomized controlled trials or observational studies (with comparison groups) that reported primary effectiveness data on conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema. For English-language studies, we extracted data in tabular form and summarized the tables descriptively. For non-English-language studies, we summarized the results descriptively and discussed similarities with the English-language studies. Results Thirty-six English-language and eight non-English-language studies were included in the review. Most of these studies involved upper-limb lymphedema secondary to breast cancer. Despite lymphedema's chronicity, lengths of follow-up in most studies were under 6 months. Many trial reports contained inadequate descriptions of randomization, blinding, and methods to assess harms. Most observational studies did not control for confounding. Many studies showed that active treatments reduced the size of lymphatic limbs, although extensive between-study heterogeneity in areas such as treatment comparisons and protocols, and outcome measures, prevented us from assessing whether any one treatment was superior. This heterogeneity also precluded us from statistically pooling results. Harms were rare (< 1% incidence) and mostly minor (e.g., headache, arm pain). Conclusions The literature contains no evidence to suggest the most effective treatment for secondary lymphedema. Harms are few and unlikely to cause major clinical problems.

Background Prospective investigations of complete decongestive lymphatic physiotherapy (CDPT), including manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), have validated the efficacy of these interventions for the initial reduction of edema and long-term maintenance of limb volume in lymphedema. However, CDPT demands substantial time and effort from patients to maintain these benefits; the treatments are not always well-accepted, and patients may suffer from a deterioration in quality-of-life or a time-dependent loss of initial treatment benefits. A new device designed for home use by the patient, the Flexitouch™, has been developed to mechanically simulate MLD. We have undertaken a prospective, randomized, crossover study of the efficacy of the Flexitouch™, when compared to massage, in the self-administered maintenance therapy of lymphedema. Methods A prospective, randomized, crossover study of maintenance therapy was performed in 10 patients with unilateral breast cancer-associated lymphedema of the arm. Each observation phase included self-administered treatment with the Flexitouch™ or massage, 1 hour daily for 14 days, respectively, followed by crossover to the alternate treatment phase. Each treatment phase was preceded by a 1 week treatment washout, with use of garment only. The sequence of treatment was randomly assigned. The potential impact of treatment modality on quality of life was assessed with serial administration of the SF-36. Results Statistical analysis disclosed that the order of treatment had no outcome influence, permitting 10 comparisons within each treatment group. Post-treatment arm volume reduced significantly after the Flexitouch™, but not after self-administered massage. The patients' mean weight decreased significantly with Flexitouch™ use, but not with massage. The Flexitouch™ device was apparently well-tolerated and accepted by patients. Serial SF-36 administration showed no deterioration in physical or psychosocial scores compared to baseline measurements; there were no statistical differences in scores when the two treatment modalities were compared. Conclusion This short-term prospective evaluation of the Flexitouch™ suggests that the device may provide better maintenance edema control than self-adiminstered massage in breast cancer-associated lymphedema. The apparent ease of use and reliability of response to the device suggest that further broad-scale testing is warranted.