Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Best-Practice Guidelines in Assessment, Risk Reduction, Management, and Surveillance for Post-Breast Cancer Lymphedema

  • Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (KK Hunt, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (LE) is a progressive, chronic disease that affects millions of cancer survivors and primarily results from surgical lymphatic vessel and/or node removal and radiation therapy. Patient support and education in the importance of early detection is essential in helping health care providers detect lymphedema early, when there is the best chance of preventing progression. Improved imaging and surgical techniques have reduced the incidence of LE; however, effective risk-reduction and treatment have historically lacked the level of evidence necessary to standardize effective treatment. The purpose of this article is to report an extensive review of literature, including highlighted multidisciplinary studies within the past 3 years, in order to update best-practice guidelines in assessment, risk reduction, management, and surveillance for post-breast cancer lymphedema.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •Of importance ••Of major importance

  1. American Cancer Society: The global economic cost of cancer. American Cancer Society, Atlanta 2010. Available at http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@internationalaffairs/documents/document/acspc-026203.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2013.

  2. Rockson SG, Rivera KK. Estimating the population burden of lymphedema. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1131:147–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. • Armer JM, Stewart BR. Post-breast cancer lymphedema: incidence increases from 12 to 30 to 60 months. Lymphology. 2010;43:118–27. This study followed survivors’ limb volume change from pre-surgery through 57 months post-surgery using the four most commonly cited diagnostic criteria (2 cm circumferential change, 200 mL perometry LVC, 10 % perometry LVC, and signs/symptoms) and found that the 2 cm criterion is the most liberal definition of LE, followed by the 200 mL perometry criterion.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Földi M, Földi E, Kubik S. In Textbook of lymphology: for physicians and lymphedema therapists. Urban and Fisher: San Francisco, CA; 2003.

  5. Hayes S, Di Sipio T, Rye S, et al. Prevalence and prognostic significance of secondary lymphedema following breast cancer. Lymphat Res Biol. 2011;9(3):135–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. •• Bernas M, Askew R, Armer J, Cormier J. Lymphedema: how do we diagnose and reduce the risk of this dreaded complication of breast cancer treatment? Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2010;2(1):53–8. This article highlights current practices in LE risk-reduction practices and methods of diagnosis and assessment. Recommendations include identifying patients with early swelling for referral to LE treatment specialists.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mahamaneerat WK, Shyu C-R, Stewart BR, Armer JM. Breast cancer treatment, BMI, post-op swelling/lymphoedema. J Lymphoedema. 2008;3(2):38–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. •• Armer JM, Stewart BR, Wanchai A, et al. Rehabilitation concepts among aging survivors living with and at risk for lymphedema: a framework for assessment, enhancing strengths, and minimizing vulnerability. Top Geriatr Rehabil. 2012;28(4):260–8. This article discusses the complexity of issues affecting rehabilitative outcomes in detection and management of post-treatment LE in an aging breast cancer survivor population. With improved cancer detection and treatment, the number of older cancer survivors is predicted to increase, making imperative attention to a survivorship rehabilitation-focused program of surveillance.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bellury LM, Ellington L, Beck SL, et al. Elderly cancer survivorship: an integrative review and conceptual framework. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15:233–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Modi S, Stanton AWB, Mortimer PS, Levick JR. Clinical assessment of human lymph flow using removal rate constants of interstitial macromolecules: a critical review of lymphoscintigraphy. Lymphat Res Biol. 2007;5(3):183–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Witte CL. Advances in imaging of lymph flow disorders. RadioGraphics. 2000;20:1697–719.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Adams KE, Rasmussen JC, Darne C, et al. Direct evidence of lymphatic function improvement after advanced pneumatic compression device treatment of lymphedema. Biomed Opt Express. 2010;1:114–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Unno N, Nishiyama M, Suzuki M, et al. Quantitative lymph imaging for assessment of lymph function using indocyanine green fluorescence lymphography. Eur J Endovasc Surg. 2008;36(2):230–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rasmussen JC, Tan IC, Marshall MV, et al. Lymphatic imaging in humans with near-infrared fluorescence. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2009;20(1):74–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rasmussen JC, Kwon S, Sevick-Muraca EM, Cormier JN. The role of lymphatics in cancer as assessed by near-infrared fluorescence imaging. Ann Biomed Eng. 2012;40(2):408–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Giacalone G, Belgrado JP, Bourgeois P, et al. A new dynamic imaging tool to study lymphoedema and associated treatments. Eur J Lymphology. 2011;22(62):10–4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liu NF, Lu Q, Jiang ZH, et al. Anatomic and functional evaluation of the lymphatics and lymph nodes in diagnosis of lymphatic circulation disorders with contrast magnetic resonance lymphangiography. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49(4):980–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Armer JM. The problem of post-breast cancer lymphedema: impact and measurement issues. Cancer Investig. 2005;23(1):76–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sagen A, Karesen R, Risberg MA. Physical activity for the affected limb and arm lymphedema after breast cancer surgery. A prospective, randomized controlled trial with two years follow-up. Acta Oncol. 2009;48(8):1102–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayrovitz HN. Limb volume estimates based on limb elliptical vs. circular cross section models. Lymphology. 2003;36(3):140–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stanton AW, Northfield JW, Holroyd B, et al. Validation of an optoelectronic limb volumeter (perometer). Lymphology. 1997;30(2):77–97.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Armer JM, Stewart BR, Shook RP. 30-month post-breast cancer treatment lymphoedema. J Lymphoedema. 2009;4(1):14–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moseley A, Piller N. Reliability of bioimpedance spectroscopy and tonometry after breast conserving cancer treatment. Lymphat Res Biol. 2008;6(2):85–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Smoot BJ, Wong JF, Dodd MJ. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of clinical measures of breast cancer-related lymphedema: area under the curve. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(4):603–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cornish BH, Chapman M, Hirst C, et al. Early diagnosis of lymphedema using multiple frequency bioimpedance. Lymphology. 2001;34(1):2–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mayrovitz HN, Brown-Cross D, Mayrovitz BL, Golla AH. Lymphedema: role of truncal clearance as a therapy component. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2009;21(5):325–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bagheri S, Ohlin K, Olsson G, Brorson H. Tissue tonometry before and after liposuction of arm lymphedema following breast cancer. Lymphat Res Biol. 2005;3(2):66–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2009 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology. 2009;42:51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shah C, Arthur D, Riutta J, et al. Breast-cancer related lymphedema: a review of procedure-specific incidence rates, clinical assessment aids, treatment paradigms, and risk reduction. Breast J. 2012;18(4):357–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sanghani M, Balk EM, Cady B. Impact of axillary lymph node dissection on breast cancer outcome in clinically node negative patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer. 2009;115(8):1613–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Boneti C, Korourian S, Bland K, et al. Axillary reverse mapping: mapping and preserving arm lymphatics may be important in preventing lymphedema during sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(5):1038–42. discussion 42–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Klimberg VS. A new concept toward the prevention of lymphedema: axillary reverse mapping. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97(7):563–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Boccardo FM, Ansaldi F, Bellini C, et al. Prospective evaluation of a prevention protocol for lymphedema following surgery for breast cancer. Lymphology. 2009;42(1):1–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Boccardo F, Casabona F, De Cian F, et al. Lymphedema microsurgical preventive healing approach: a new technique for primary prevention of arm lymphedema after mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(3):703–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Box RC, Reul-Hirche HM, Bullock-Saxton JE, Furnival CM. Physiotherapy after breast cancer surgery: results of a randomised controlled study to minimise lymphoedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;75(1):51–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stout Gergich NL, Pfalzer LA, Mcgarvey C, et al. Preoperative assessment enables the early diagnosis and successful treatment of lymphedema. Cancer. 2008;112(12):2809–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Torres Lacomba M, Yuste Sanchez MJ, Zapico Goni A, et al. Effectiveness of early physiotherapy to prevent lymphoedema after surgery for breast cancer: randomised, single blinded, clinical trial. In BMJ. 2010, 340: b5396.

  39. Hayes SC, Reul-Hirche H, Turner J. Exercise and secondary lymphedema: safety, potential benefits, and research issues. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schmitz KH. Balancing lymphedema risk: exercise versus deconditioning for breast cancer survivors. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2010;38(1):17–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. •• Lasinski BB, Mckillip Thrift K, Squire D, et al. A systematic review of the evidence for complete decongestive therapy in the treatment of lymphedema from 2004 to 2011. PM&R. 2012;4(8):580–601. In a review of 26 articles published between 2004 and 2011, complete decongestive therapy, as a combination of intervention procedures, was found to reduce limb swelling associated with lymphedema, as did the individual components manual lymphatic drainage and compression bandaging.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, et al. Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, hooked on evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed. Physiotherapy. 2009;95(3):151–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Position statement of the National Lymphedema Network: Topic: The diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema. Available at http://www.lymphnet.org/pdfDocs/nlntreatment.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2012.

  44. Lymphoedema Framework. Best practice for the management of lymphoedema. London: MEP Ltd; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  45. • Ridner SH, Fu MR, Wanchai A, et al. Self-management of lymphedema: a systematic review of the literature from 2004 to 2011. Nurs Res. 2012;61(4):291–9. Combined decongestive therapy and full body exercise as self-management actions were given a “likely to be effective” rating using the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) putting evidence into practice (PEP) criteria.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schmitz KH, Troxel AB, Cheville A, et al. Physical activity and lymphedema (the PAL trial): assessing the safety of progressive strength training in breast cancer survivors. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(3):233–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Morello E, Sandri R, Monfardini S. Enough rehabilitation for our elderly cancer patients? Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(16):2338–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. American Cancer Society (ACS): Lymphedema: What every woman with breast cancer should know 2013. Available at http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/002876-pdf.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2013.

  49. Thiadens SRJ. 18 steps to prevention revised: Lymphedema risk-reduction practices. Available at http://lymphnet.org/lymphedemaFAQs/riskReduction/riskReduction.htm. Accessed January 2, 2013.

  50. • Beck M, Wanchai A, Stewart BR, et al. Palliative care for cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(7):821–7. This systematic review of palliative care LE management concluded that CDT, MLD, and compression bandaging are categorized as “effectiveness not established,” but note that no adverse findings were reported. On the basis of these findings, CDT, MLD, and compression bandaging offer a potential benefit to LE symptom control and improved quality of life for LE patients receiving palliative care.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mitchell S, Friese C. ONS PEP (Putting Evidence into Practice) weight of evidence classification schema: Decision rules for summative evaluation of a body of evidence 2011. Available at http://www.ons.org/Research/media/ons/docs/research/outcomes/weight-ofevidence-table.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2013.

  52. •• Cormier JN, Rourke L, Crosby M, et al. The surgical treatment of lymphedema: a systematic review of the contemporary literature (2004–2010). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):642–51. Surgical techniques have been shown to benefit some patients with LE symptoms, but not without continued use of CDT and compression for most patients in the study. Studies with non-surgical vs. surgical intervention are needed to evaluate efficacy and consideration of risk. Conservative therapy remains the first-line treatment. Risks of surgery must be weighed against benefits in survivor outcomes; compression garments must still be worn long-term post-operatively.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Moseley AL, Carati CJ, Piller NB. A systematic review of common conservative therapies for arm lymphoedema secondary to breast cancer treatment. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:639–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Rinehart-Ayres M, Fish K, Lapp K, Brown CN. Use of compression pumps for treatment of upper extremity lymphedema following treatment for breast cancer: a systematic review. Rehab Oncol. 2010;28:10–8.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Feldman JL, Stout NL, Wanchai A, et al. Intermittent pneumatic compression therapy: a systematic review. Lymphology. 2012;45(1):13–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. • Schmitz KH, Speck RM, Rye SA, et al. Prevalence of breast cancer treatment sequelae over 6 years of follow-up: the pulling through study. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2217–25. At six years post-diagnosis, most survivors experience one or more late effects of breast cancer treatment amenable to rehabilitative intervention. Data support a multidisciplinary prospective surveillance approach in the management and treatment of adverse effects of breast cancer treatment.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. •• Kwan ML, Cohn JC, Armer JM, et al. Exercise in patients with lymphedema: a systematic review of the contemporary literature. J Cancer Surviv. 2011;5(4):320–36. This systematic review of the literature concludes that supervised slow, progressive resistance exercise programs, under proper supervision, are safe for breast cancer survivors at risk of secondary LE. Combination aerobic and resistance programs seem safe, but require more rigorous study.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. • Schmitz KH, Ahmed RL, Troxel AB, et al. Weight lifting for women at risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2010;304(24):2699–705. Among breast cancer survivors at risk of LE, exercise in a supervised progressive weight lifting program did not increase the incidence of LE compared with no exercise.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. • Schmitz KH, Ahmed RL, Troxel A, et al. Weight lifting in women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(7):664–73. The PALS trial showed that among breast-cancer survivors with LE supervised slowly progressive weight lifting had no significant effect on limb edema. Those exercising experienced reduced incidence of LE exacerbation, reduced symptoms, and increased strength.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Ahmed RL, Schmitz KH, Prizment AE, Folsom AR. Risk factors for lymphedema in breast cancer survivors, the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130(3):981–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kilbreath SL, Refshauge KM, Beith JM, et al. Progressive resistance training and stretching following surgery for breast cancer: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2006;6:273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Irdesel J, Kahraman CS. Effectiveness of exercise and compression garments in the treatment of breast cancer related lymphedema. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;53(1):16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Sander AP. A safe and effective upper extremity resistive exercise program for woman post breast cancer treatment. Rehab Oncol. 2008;26(3):3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Courneya KS, Segal RJ, Mackey JR, et al. Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4396–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Portela ALM, Santaella CLC, Gomez CC, Burch A. Feasibility of an exercise program for Puerto Rican women who are breast cancer survivors. Rehab Oncol. 2008;26(2):20–31.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kilbreath S, Refshauge K, Beith J, Lee M. Resistance and stretching shoulder exercises early following axillary surgery for breast cancer. Rehab Oncol. 2006;24(2):9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Schmitz KH, Stout NL, Andrews K, et al. Prospective evaluation of physical rehabilitation needs in breast cancer survivors: a call to action. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2187–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wanchai A, Armer JM, Stewart BR. Performance care practices in complementary and alternative medicine by Thai breast cancer survivors: an ethnonursing study. Nurs Heal Sci. 2012;14(3):339–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Finnane A, Liu Y, Battistutta D, et al. Lymphedema after breast or gynecological cancer: use and effectiveness of mainstream and complementary therapies. J Altern Complement Med. 2011;17(9):867–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Matchim Y, Armer JM, Stewart BR. Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) on health among breast cancer survivors. West J Nurs Res. 2011;33(8):996–1016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Tidhar D, Katz-Leurer M. Aqua lymphatic therapy in women who suffer from breast cancer treatment-related lymphedema: a randomized controlled study. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(3):383–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Arinaga Y. Holistic management of lymphoedema in Japan: two contrasting cases. J Lymphoedema. 2012;7(2):40–2.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Cassileth BR, Van Zee KJ, Chan Y, et al. A safety and efficacy pilot study of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic lymphoedema. Acupunct Med. 2011;29(3):170–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. De Valois BA, Young TE, Melsome E. Assessing the feasibility of using acupuncture and moxibustion to improve quality of life for cancer survivors with upper body lymphoedema. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16(3):301–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Douglass J, Immink M, Piller N, Ullah S. Yoga for women with breast cancer-related lymphoedema: a preliminary 6-month study. J Lymphoedema. 2012;7(2):30–8.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Disa JJ, Petrek J. Rehabilitation after treatment for cancer of the breast. In: Devita Jr VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer principles and practice of oncology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 2001. p. 1717–26.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Doherty DC, et al. Lymphoedema: an underestimated health problem. QJM. 2003;96(10):731–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Shih YC, Xu Y, Cormier JN, et al. Incidence, treatment costs, and complications of lymphedema after breast cancer among women of working age: a 2-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2007–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Witek-Janusek L, Gabram S, Mathews HL. Psychologic stress, reduced nk cell activity, and cytokine dysregulation in women experiencing diagnostic breast biopsy. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007;32(1):22–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Ridner SH. The psycho-social impact of lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol. 2009;7(2):109–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Fu MR, Ridner SH, Hu SH, et al. Psychosocial impact of lymphedema: a systematic review of literature from 2004 to 2011. Psycho-Oncology. 2012. doi:10.1002/pon.3201. first published online: 9 Oct 2012.

  82. Cormier JN, Ross MI, Gershenwald JE, et al. Prospective assessment of the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the functional assessment of cancer therapy—melanoma questionnaire. Cancer. 2008;112(10):2249–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Johansson K, Branje E. Arm lymphoedema in a cohort of breast cancer survivors 10 years after diagnosis. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:166–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. •• Hayes SC, Johansson K, Stout NL, et al. Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2237–49. This paper reviewed the incidence of upper-body morbidity (arm and breast symptoms, impairments, and lymphedema), methods of diagnosis, prevention and treatment strategies, and the evidence for integration of prospective surveillance for upper-body morbidity within standard clinical care of women with breast cancer. There is evidence in support of integrating regular surveillance for upper-body morbidity into the routine clinical care provided to women with breast cancer, with early diagnosis potentially contributing to more effective management and prevention of progression of these conditions.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. •• Stout NL, Binkley JM, Schmitz KH, et al. A prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation for women with breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2191–200. The objectives of a prospective surveillance model include: promotion of surveillance of common physical and functional limitations associated with breast-cancer treatment; education for early identification of physical impairment and functional limitation; referral for rehabilitation and exercise intervention when physical limitations are identified; and promotion and support of physical activity, exercise, nutrition, and weight-management behavior throughout survival.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. • Binkley JM, Harris SR, Levangie PK, et al. Patient perspectives on breast cancer treatment side effects and the prospective surveillance model for physical rehabilitation for women with breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2207–16. The prospective surveillance model of rehabilitation serves the needs of breast cancer survivors by providing education and information about treatment side effects, reducing the incidence and burden of side effects through early identification and treatment, and enhancing access to timely rehabilitation. Integration of exercise into the model benefits patients at every phase of survivorship. Application of the model can meet the needs of survivors for information, guidance, and intervention—thus addressing, and potentially improving, overall quality of life for individuals treated for breast cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Reneker J, Armer J, Stewart B, Shyu CR. Development of a minimum data set to assist in international collaborative lymphedema studies. In 23rd International Congress of Lymphology proceedings. Lymphology (supp) 2013 in press.

  88. National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) components. Available at http://napbc-breast.org/standards/standards.html. Accessed January 13, 2013.

  89. •• Bernas M. Assessment and risk reduction in lymphedema. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2013;29(1):12–9. Risk-reduction strategies and methods for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of lymphedema are a major focus in oncology. Operative and physical methods to reduce the risk of lymphedema and an emphasis on early detection have led to promising results post-breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. Standardization of reproducible methods utilizing currently available and reliable tools are necessary to determine the most effective means to care for patients at risk of development of lymphedema.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

J.M. Armer declares that she has no conflict of interest.

J.M. Hulett declares that she has no conflict of interest.

M. Bernas declares that he has no conflict of interest.

P. Ostby declares that she has no conflict of interest.

B.R. Stewart declares that he has no conflict of interest.

J. N. Cormier declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sinclair School of Nursing, Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, DC 116.05 Suite 415 EFCC, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO, 62011, USA

    Jane M. Armer, Jennifer M. Hulett, Pam Ostby & Bob R. Stewart

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Michael Bernas

  3. College of Education, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO, 62011, USA

    Bob R. Stewart

  4. Department of Surgical Oncology, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Janice N. Cormier

Authors
  1. Jane M. Armer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer M. Hulett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Bernas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pam Ostby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bob R. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Janice N. Cormier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane M. Armer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Armer, J.M., Hulett, J.M., Bernas, M. et al. Best-Practice Guidelines in Assessment, Risk Reduction, Management, and Surveillance for Post-Breast Cancer Lymphedema. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 5, 134–144 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-013-0105-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-013-0105-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation