This article provides an overview of the recent developments in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cancer-related lymphedema. Lymphedema incidence by tumor site is evaluated. Measurement techniques and trends in patient education and treatment are also summarized to include current trends in therapeutic and surgical treatment options as well as longer-term management. Finally, an overview of the policies related to insurance coverage and reimbursement will give the clinician an overview of important trends in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of cancer-related lymphedema.

BackgroundMany surgeons experience work-related pain and musculoskeletal symptoms; however, comprehensive reporting of surgeon ailments is lacking in the literature. We sought to evaluate surgeons' work-related symptoms, possible causes of these symptoms, and to report outcomes associated with those symptoms.Materials and methodsFive major medical indices were queried for articles published between 1980 and 2014. Included articles evaluated musculoskeletal symptoms and ergonomic outcomes in surgeons. A meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model was used to report pooled results.ResultsForty articles with 5152 surveyed surgeons were included. Sixty-eight percent of surgeons surveyed reported generalized pain. Site-specific pain included pain in the back (50%), neck (48%), and arm or shoulder (43%). Fatigue was reported by 71% of surgeons, numbness by 37%, and stiffness by 45%. Compared with surgeons performing open surgery, surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) were significantly more likely to experience pain in the neck (OR 2.77 [95% CI 1.30–5.93]), arm or shoulder (OR 4.59 [2.19–9.61]), hands (OR 2.99 [1.33–6.71], and legs (OR 12.34 [5.43–28.06]) and experience higher odds of fatigue (8.09 [5.60–11.70]) and numbness (6.82 [1.75–26.65]). Operating exacerbated pain in 61% of surgeons, but only 29% sought treatment for their symptoms. We found no direct association between muscles strained and symptoms.ConclusionsMost surgeons report work-related symptoms but are unlikely to seek medical attention. MIS surgeons are significantly more likely to experience musculoskeletal symptoms than surgeons performing open surgery. Symptoms experienced do not necessarily correlate with strain.

Background There are no evidence-based guidelines for surveillance of patients with melanoma following surgical treatment. We performed a systematic review to identify current stage-specific surveillance practices for patients with melanoma by country and physician specialty. Methods Three major medical indices, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library database, and Scopus, were reviewed to identify articles published in January 1970 to October 2011 that included detailed information about surveillance of patients with melanoma after initial surgical treatment. Data on surveillance intervals and recommended evaluation were extracted and categorized by country and, when reported, physician specialty. Results One hundred four articles from 10 countries and 4 physician specialties (dermatology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and general practice) met the inclusion criteria, including 43 providing specific patient-level data. The articles showed wide variation with respect to surveillance intervals and recommended evaluations. Variation was greatest for patients with stage I disease, for whom follow-up frequency ranged from 1 to 6 visits per year during years 1 and 2 after treatment. All 4 physician specialties agreed that for years 1–3, the follow-up frequency should be 4 times per year for all patients. For years 4 and 5, surgical oncologists recommended 2 follow-up visits per year, whereas general practitioners, dermatologists, and medical oncologists recommended 4 visits per year. Recommended imaging and laboratory evaluations were most intense in the United Kingdom and most minimalist in The Netherlands. While general practitioners did not recommend routine laboratory or imaging tests for surveillance, all other specialties utilized both in their surveillance practice. Self skin-examination was recommended for surveillance in all countries and by all practitioner specialties. Conclusions There is significant intercountry and interspecialty variation in surveillance of patients with melanoma. As the number of melanoma survivors increases, it will be critical to examine the benefits and costs of various follow-up strategies to establish consensus guidelines for melanoma post-treatment surveillance.

The effectiveness of routine surveillance imaging for detecting treatable melanoma recurrences is limited. Even in patients with stage III disease, only minimal gains in life expectancy were achieved.