Lymphedema: Conventional to Cutting Edge Treatment

Lymphedema after regional nodal irradiation for breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

We aimed to analyze the occurrence of lymphedema as a side effect in patients who underwent regional nodal irradiation (RNI) following surgery for breast cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted on patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery from July 2014 to October 2020 at Inje University Busan Paik Hospital. The analysis included 113 cT1-3N1-3M0 breast cancer patients who underwent RNI as part of radiotherapy (RT). Mostly, surgeries were performed using breast-conserving surgery (n = 99, 87.6%), except for 14 patients with modified radical mastectomy. The total RT dose for RNI was 45-60 Gy, and the fraction size was 1.8-2.0 Gy. Most patients underwent chemotherapy (n = 98, 86.7%), including taxanes (n = 92, 81.4%).

Results

The median follow-up was 61.1 months (range, 5.0-110.5 months). Lymphedema occurred in 54 patients (47.8%) after surgery. Twenty of them (17.7%) developed a new onset of lymphedema after RT, while 34 (30.1%) detected lymphedema before the completion of RT. Over the follow-up, 16 patients (14.2%) experienced recurrence. High radiation dose (>50.4 Gy) for RNI (P = 0.003) and taxane use (P = 0.038) were related to lymphedema occurrence after RT. Moreover, lymphedema occurrence after RT was also related to recurrence after surgical resection (P = 0.026). Breast-conserving surgery was related to early-onset lymphedema before the completion of RT (P = 0.047). Furthermore, the degree of lymph node dissection (≤4) was related to the overall occurrence of lymphedema (P = 0.045).

Conclusion

Considering a reduction in RNI dose may be beneficial in mitigating the incidence of lymphedema after RT in patients with breast cancer.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Liposuction for Lower Limb versus Upper Limb Lymphedema

OBJECTIVE

Liposuction is the most frequently performed debulking procedure in patients with lymphedema. However, it remains uncertain whether liposuction is equally effective for upper extremity lymphedema (UEL) and lower extremity lymphedema (LEL). In this study, we retrospectively compared the effectiveness of liposuction according to whether it was performed for LEL or UEL, and identified factors associated with outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients had been treated at least once by lymphovenous anastomosis or vascularized lymphatic transplant before liposuction but without sufficient volume reduction. The patients were divided into an LEL group and a UEL group, and then subdivided further according to whether they completed their planned compression therapy into an LEL compliance group, an LEL non-compliance group, a UEL compliance group, and a UEL non-compliance group. The reduction rates in LEL (REL) and in UEL (REU) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

In total, 28 patients with unilateral lymphedema were enrolled (LEL compliance group, n = 12; LEL non-compliance group, n = 6; UEL compliance group, n = 10; UEL non-compliance group, n = 0). The non-compliance rate was significantly higher in the LEL group than in the UEL group (p = 0.04). REU was significantly higher than REL (100.1 ± 37.3% vs. 59.3 ± 49.4%; p = 0.03); however, there was no significant difference between REL in the LEL compliance group (86 ± 31%) and REU in the UEL group (101 ± 37%) (p = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

Liposuction seems to be more effective in UEL than in LEL, probably because the compression therapy required for management after liposuction is easier to implement for UEL. The lower pressure and smaller coverage area required for postoperative management after liposuction in the upper limb may explain why liposuction is more effective in UEL than in LEL.

Lymphatic/blood vessel plasticity: motivation for a future research area based on present and past observations

The lymphatic system plays a significant role in homeostasis and drainage of excess fluid back into venous circulation. Lymphatics are also associated with a number of diseases including lymphedema, tumor metastasis, and various lymphatic malformations. Emerging evidence suggests that lymphatics might have a bigger connection to the blood vascular system than originally presumed. As these two systems are often studied in isolation, several knowledge gaps exist surrounding what constitutes lymphatic vascular plasticity, under what conditions it arises, and where structures characteristic of plasticity can form. The objective of this review is to overview current structural, cell lineage-based, and cell identity-based evidence for lymphatic plasticity. These examples of plasticity will then be considered in the context of potential clinical and surgical implications of this evolving research area. This review details our current understanding of lymphatic plasticity, highlights key unanswered questions in the field, and motivates future research aimed at clarifying the role and therapeutic potential of lymphatic plasticity in disease.

Lymphatic Mapping Using US Microbubbles before Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis Surgery for Lymphedema

Background Lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) surgery is an effective surgical treatment of secondary lymphedema in the extremities, but indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescent lymphography, the reference standard for imaging target lymphatic vessels, has several limitations. More effective methods are needed for preoperative planning. Purpose To evaluate whether contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) can be used to identify target lymphatic vessels for LVA surgery in patients with secondary upper extremity lymphedema and compare the results with those from ICG fluorescent lymphography. Materials and Methods In this single-center retrospective review, CEUS with intradermal injection of microbubbles was performed in patients before LVA surgery in the upper extremities between October 2019 and September 2021. All patients had secondary upper extremity lymphedema from breast cancer treatment. Technical success rate was defined as lymphatic vessels identified with use of CEUS that led to successful LVAs. Descriptive statistics were used. Results All 11 patients were women (mean age, 56 years ± 8 [SD]). The median number of microbubble injection sites was 11 (range, 8-14). CEUS helped identify lymphatic vessels in all 11 women, including in six women in whom ICG fluorescent lymphography could not be performed or failed to help identify any targets. Thirty-five explorations (median, three per patient; range, two to four) were performed, and 24 LVAs (median, three per patient; range, zero to four) were created. Of the anastomoses, 33% (eight of 24) were mapped with use of both CEUS and ICG fluorescent lymphography, 58% (14 of 24) with CEUS only, and 8% (two of 24) with ICG fluorescent lymphography only. Among the 33 explorations on targets mapped with CEUS, an anastomosis could be made at 22 sites, for a technical success rate of 67%. Seven women had at least one additional LVA created from the use of CEUS. Conclusion Contrast-enhanced US is a promising tool for identifying lymphatic vessels in the upper extremities, especially when indocyanine green fluorescent lymphography fails to depict targets or cannot be used. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Is mannitol combined with furosemide a new treatment for refractory lymphedema? A case report

BACKGROUND

Mannitol is a hyperosmolar agent and the combination of mannitol and furosemide is a widely used treatment for intracranial pressure control. Considering the hypertonic properties of mannitol to move water out of intracellular spaces, we hypothesized that mannitol combined with furosemide could relieve focal tissue swelling in refractory lymphedema.

CASE SUMMARY

A 90-year-old female had been diagnosed with intracranial hemorrhage and received a combination of mannitol and furosemide for intracranial pressure control. Independent of the intracranial hemorrhage, she had refractory lymphedema of the left lower extremity since 1998. Remarkably, after receiving the mannitol and furosemide, the patient’s lower extremity lymphedema improved dramatically. After the mannitol and furosemide were discontinued, the lymphedema worsened in spite of complete decongestive therapy (CDT) and intermittent pneumatic compression treatment (IPC). To identify the presumed effect of mannitol and furosemide on the lymphedema, these agents were resumed, and the lymphedema improved again.

CONCLUSION

The present case raises the possibility that a combination of mannitol and furosemide might be considered another effective therapeutic option for refractory lymphedema when CDT and IPC are ineffective.