Accessory Lymphatic Drainage Pathways on Indocyanine Green Lymphography in Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: Current predictive models of lymphedema risk cannot predict with 100% certainty which patients will go on to develop lymphedema and which will not. Patient-specific anatomic and physiologic differences may be the missing factor. The authors hypothesize that patients with accessory lymphatic pathways may have improved lymphatic drainage, resulting in smaller limb volumes. METHODS: The authors reviewed indocyanine green (ICG) lymphography images of all patients who presented to their institution for evaluation of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Patients with unilateral upper extremity lymphedema, a full set of bilateral limb measurements, and ICG images of both limbs were included. Other variables of interest included patient demographics and length of follow-up. Patients with accessory pathways were determined independently, and conflicts were resolved with discussion. Abnormal images were also evaluated for common drainage pathways. RESULTS: Thirty patients were identified as having accessory lymphatic drainage pathways. These patients had significantly smaller limb volume differences [8.19% (SD, 11.22)] compared with patients who did not exhibit these pathways [20.74% (SD, 19.76); P < 0.001]. The most common pathway was absence or rerouting of the radial bundle to the ulnar or volar bundles ( n = 16). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to create accessory lymphatic drainage pathways may be associated with improved lymphatic drainage, resulting in smaller limb volumes. Furthermore, certain drainage pathways appear to be more common than others. Description of these pathways should be considered for inclusion in ICG lymphography image grading criteria. Further study is needed to clarify the nature of these pathways and whether these pathways affect subjective symptoms and quality of life. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

An updated systematic review of esthetic grading tools in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We ascertained whether a validated esthetic grading tool for breast reconstruction had been developed and widely adopted since the last published systematic review on the topic from 2015. METHODS: We performed a systematic review identifying all studies using a grading tool to assess breast reconstruction, using search terms associated with all types of breast surgery and outcomes research. Articles were assessed for patient number, validated scale use, assessor type and training, assessor blinding, assessment method, scoring system type, type and timing of reconstruction, and usage of corroborating scales. RESULTS: Of 2809 articles screened, 148 met the criteria. Only 3 used a validated tool, the Esthetic Items Scale. Most used study-only tools (n = 111) or unvalidated tools (n = 28). The most used unvalidated tool was the Garbay/Lowery 5-subscale rubric. Unanchored Likert scales were the most common subjective tool; two-dimensional images were the most used medium. Surgeons, patients, and nurses were the most common assessors. Twenty percent of studies used corroborating scales. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a validated esthetic grading tool for breast reconstruction, researchers continue to rely on unvalidated scales. The only validated scale available is used infrequently and only validated among physicians. A validated, reliable, simple grading tool with clinical and scholastic relevance is needed.

The Impact of Lymphedema on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Breast Reconstruction: A Preliminary Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the impact of secondary lymphedema on patient-reported satisfaction and quality of life following postmastectomy breast reconstruction are limited by their heterogeneity. We aimed to reduce heterogeneity in study sample populations and compare BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module scores of patients with lymphedema matched to patients without lymphedema. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction from 2009 to 2017 and performed a propensity score-matched analysis to compare patient-reported outcomes of patients who developed lymphedema with those who did not. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, smoking history, radiation or chemotherapy exposure, postoperative infection, and reconstruction modality and laterality. Outcomes of interest were pre- and postoperative BREAST-Q scores for Satisfaction with Breasts, Physical Well-being of the Chest, Sexual Well-Being, and Psychosocial Well-Being; the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was four points. RESULTS: Matched cohorts included 322 patients per group. Preoperative BREAST-Q scores did not differ between lymphedema and non-lymphedema matched cohorts. Postoperative BREAST-Q scores were significantly lower in lymphedema patients: Physical Well-Being of the Chest (all time points), Satisfaction with Breast (at 1 and 2 years), Sexual Well-Being (at 2 years), and Psychosocial Well-Being (at 2 and 3 years). All significant differences in average scores were greater than the MCID. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema reported significantly lower Physical Well-Being of the Chest, Satisfaction with Breasts, Sexual Well-Being, and Psychosocial Well-Being at various time points. Our findings may prove useful for patient counseling and justify the need for further research on the prevention and treatment of this devastating disease.

Noninvasive Systemic Modalities for Prevention of Head and Neck Radiation-Associated Soft Tissue Injury: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Radiation-associated soft tissue injury is a potentially devastating complication for head and neck cancer patients. The damage can range from minor sequelae such as xerostomia, which requires frequent daily maintenance, to destructive degenerative processes such as osteoradionecrosis, which can contribute to flap failure and delay or reverse oral rehabilitation. Despite the need for effective radioprotectants, the literature remains sparse, primarily focused on interventions beyond the surgeon's control, such as maintenance of good oral hygiene or modulation of radiation dose. METHODS: This narrative review aggregates and explores noninvasive, systemic treatment modalities for prevention or amelioration of radiation-associated soft tissue injury. RESULTS: We highlighted nine modalities with the most clinical potential, which include amifostine, melatonin, palifermin, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, photobiomodulation, pentoxifylline-tocopherol-clodronate, pravastatin, transforming growth factor-ß modulators, and deferoxamine, and reviewed the benefits and limitations of each modality. Unfortunately, none of these modalities are supported by strong evidence for prophylaxis against radiation-associated soft tissue injury. CONCLUSION: While we cannot endorse any of these nine modalities for immediate clinical use, they may prove fruitful areas for further investigation.