Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: More than one in five patients who undergo treatment for breast cancer will develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BCRL can occur as a result of breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. BCRL can negatively impact comfort, function, and quality of life (QoL). Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), a type of hands-on therapy, is frequently used for BCRL and often as part of complex decongestive therapy (CDT). CDT is a fourfold conservative treatment which includes MLD, compression therapy (consisting of compression bandages, compression sleeves, or other types of compression garments), skin care, and lymph-reducing exercises (LREs). Phase 1 of CDT is to reduce swelling; Phase 2 is to maintain the reduced swelling. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of MLD in treating BCRL. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform), and Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register from root to 24 May 2013. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of women with BCRL. The intervention was MLD. The primary outcomes were (1) volumetric changes, (2) adverse events. Secondary outcomes were (1) function, (2) subjective sensations, (3) QoL, (4) cost of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on three volumetric outcomes. (1) LE (lymphedema) volume was defined as the amount of excess fluid left in the arm after treatment, calculated as volume in mL of affected arm post-treatment minus unaffected arm post-treatment. (2) Volume reduction was defined as the amount of fluid reduction in mL from before to after treatment calculated as the pretreatment LE volume of the affected arm minus the post-treatment LE volume of the affected arm. (3) Per cent reduction was defined as the proportion of fluid reduced relative to the baseline excess volume, calculated as volume reduction divided by baseline LE volume multiplied by 100. We entered trial data into Review Manger 5.2 (RevMan), pooled data using a fixed-effect model, and analyzed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also explored subgroups to determine whether mild BCRL compared to moderate or severe BCRL, and BCRL less than a year compared to more than a year was associated with a better response to MLD. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included. Based on similar designs, trials clustered in three categories.(1) MLD + standard physiotherapy versus standard physiotherapy (one trial) showed significant improvements in both groups from baseline but no significant between-groups differences for per cent reduction.(2) MLD + compression bandaging versus compression bandaging (two trials) showed significant per cent reductions of 30% to 38.6% for compression bandaging alone, and an additional 7.11% reduction for MLD (MD 7.11%, 95% CI 1.75% to 12.47%; two RCTs; 83 participants). Volume reduction was borderline significant (P = 0.06). LE volume was not significant. Subgroup analyses was significant showing that participants with mild-to-moderate BCRL were better responders to MLD than were moderate-to-severe participants.(3) MLD + compression therapy versus nonMLD treatment + compression therapy (three trials) were too varied to pool. One of the trials compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus pneumatic pump. Volume reduction was statistically significant favoring MLD (MD 47.00 mL, 95% CI 15.25 mL to 78.75 mL; 1 RCT; 24 participants), per cent reduction was borderline significant (P=0.07), and LE volume was not significant. A second trial compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus self-administered simple lymphatic drainage (SLD), and was significant for MLD for LE volume (MD -230.00 mL, 95% CI -450.84 mL to -9.16 mL; 1 RCT; 31 participants) but not for volume reduction or per cent reduction. A third trial of MLD + compression bandaging versus SLD + compression bandaging was not significant (P = 0.10) for per cent reduction, the only outcome measured (MD 11.80%, 95% CI -2.47% to 26.07%, 28 participants).MLD was well tolerated and safe in all trials.Two trials measured function as range of motion with conflicting results. One trial reported significant within-groups gains for both groups, but no between-groups differences. The other trial reported there were no significant within-groups gains and did not report between-groups results. One trial measured strength and reported no significant changes in either group.Two trials measured QoL, but results were not usable because one trial did not report any results, and the other trial did not report between-groups results.Four trials measured sensations such as pain and heaviness. Overall, the sensations were significantly reduced in both groups over baseline, but with no between-groups differences. No trials reported cost of care.Trials were small ranging from 24 to 45 participants. Most trials appeared to randomize participants adequately. However, in four trials the person measuring the swelling knew what treatment the participants were receiving, and this could have biased results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MLD is safe and may offer additional benefit to compression bandaging for swelling reduction. Compared to individuals with moderate-to-severe BCRL, those with mild-to-moderate BCRL may be the ones who benefit from adding MLD to an intensive course of treatment with compression bandaging. This finding, however, needs to be confirmed by randomized data.In trials where MLD and sleeve were compared with a nonMLD treatment and sleeve, volumetric outcomes were inconsistent within the same trial. Research is needed to identify the most clinically meaningful volumetric measurement, to incorporate newer technologies in LE assessment, and to assess other clinically relevant outcomes such as fibrotic tissue formation.Findings were contradictory for function (range of motion), and inconclusive for quality of life.For symptoms such as pain and heaviness, 60% to 80% of participants reported feeling better regardless of which treatment they received.One-year follow-up suggests that once swelling had been reduced, participants were likely to keep their swelling down if they continued to use a custom-made sleeve.

Perceptions about participation in cancer clinical trials in New York state.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are valuable in advancing cancer care through the investigation of ways in which to better prevent, detect and diagnose, and/or treat cancer. Recruitment of adults into clinical trials has historically been low. OBJECTIVE: To survey adult cancer patients who reside in New York state to better understand their participation in and attitudes about clinical trials. METHODS: From January 2012-April 2013, we conducted a one-time survey about clinical trials in 8 cancer-treatment or cancer-patient support organizations in the state. Surveys were offered in person and online to adults with a past or current cancer diagnosis. Analysis was limited to adults who resided in the state and provided a self-reported status of previous participation in clinical trials. RESULTS: Of the 1,832 participants who completed the survey, 1,475 were included in the analysis. Our sample represented all regions of the state. Most of the respondents (68.1%) had never participated in a clinical trial. Almost 32% said they had never received information about research studies. Most (84%) felt that patients should be asked to participate in clinical trials, but fewer (70%) were willing to be approached about participation. LIMITATIONS: The sample is predominantly white and female and overrepresents breast and hematologic cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Increased outreach coupled with a team approach to educate and enroll patients in clinical trials may be the necessary first steps to increase participation in trials and ensure a diverse sample of participants.

Routine, empathic and compassionate patient care: definitions, development, obstacles, education and beneficiaries.

RATIONALE: We believe that this study represents an innovative approach to clarifying the definitions of routine, empathic and compassionate health care, as well as of sympathy. We emphasize the importance of affective empathy and its intensification in the context of patient suffering (compassion), without abandoning the ideal of clinical equanimity. METHODS: We develop a pedagogical model for clinicians and trainees who are weaker in their empathic skills that includes four levels of growth. We clarify representative obstacles to empathic and compassionate care in education and clinical practice. We summarize the four beneficiaries of empathic and compassionate care (clinicians, patients, trainees, institutions). We suggest areas for future research, including the development of a compassion scale and conclude with a statement on how the conceptual and professional confusion we address adversely impacts patients and trainees. The article represents the consensus work of a group of health care professionals and students at Stony Brook University Hospital and School of Medicine who have been engaged in this project for several years through the Center for Medical Humanities, Compassionate Care, and Bioethics, established in August of 2008. CONCLUSIONS: We discern a shift away from concepts of clinical empathy and compassionate care that deny a significant place for an affective component and that idealize 'detachment'.