Stout, Nicole L.

Lymphedema is a feared complication of cancer treatments that negatively affects survivors’ quality of life. The true incidence of lymphedema is difficult to determine given its long latency period. As the number of survivors of cancer is increasing in the United States, lymphedema is poised to be a major health concern. The most noteworthy risk factor for lymphedema is comprehensive lymph node dissection. The last 2 decades have witnessed a dramatic shift in cancer treatment in an attempt to systematically de-escalate therapeutic interventions, specifically seeking to shift treatment away from routine lymph node dissection in favor of sentinel node biopsy or radiation strategies, thereby reducing the risk for lymphedema while maintaining survival outcomes. A growing body of robust evidence supports prospective screening and thereby a prospective surveillance model (PSM) for early diagnosis and intervention for the prevention and treatment of lymphedema. Finally, investigators are actively evaluating the effectiveness of contemporary surgical procedures in ameliorating the symptoms and disability of patients with lymphedema and reducing the risk of future episodes of cellulitis, with outcomes of surgery significantly better than with conservative therapy alone. In this article, we review the current data surrounding these initiatives.

This article presents a clinical screening and referral framework to enable health care professionals to guide individuals with cancer to safe and effective exercise programs.

Abstract Background Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated over the last decade. However, closer examination of the published literature reveals that the majority of this work has focused on psychological interventions and cognitive and behavioral therapies. Recent initiatives have aggregated expert consensus around research priorities, highlighting a dearth in research regarding measurement of and interventions for physical function. Increasingly loud calls for the need to address the myriad of physical functional impairments that develop in people living with and beyond cancer have been published in the literature. A detailed survey of the landscape of published research has not been reported to our knowledge. Purpose This scoping review systematically identified literature published between 2008 and 2018 related to the screening, assessment, and interventions associated with physical function in people living with and beyond cancer. Data Sources PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to September 2018. Study Selection Study selection included articles of all levels of evidence on any disease stage and population. A total of 11,483 articles were screened for eligibility, 2507 full-text articles were reviewed, and 1055 articles were selected for final inclusion and extraction. Data Extraction Seven reviewers recorded type of cancer, disease stage, age of participants, phase of treatment, time since diagnosis, application to physical function, study design, impairments related to physical function, and measurement instruments used. Data Synthesis Approximately one-third of the articles included patients with various cancer diagnoses (30.3%), whereas the rest focused on a single cancer, most commonly breast (24.8%). Most articles (77%) measured physical function following the completion of active cancer treatment with 64% representing the assessment domain. The most commonly used measures of physical function were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Health Survey Questionnaire (29%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (21.5%). Limitations Studies not written in English, study protocols, conference abstracts, and unpublished data were excluded. Conclusions This review elucidated significant inconsistencies in the literature regarding language used to define physical function, measurement tools used to characterize function, and the use of those tools across the cancer treatment and survivorship trajectory. The findings suggested that physical function in cancer research is predominantly measured using general health-related quality-of-life tools rather than more precise functional assessment tools. Interdisciplinary and clinician-researcher collaborative efforts should be directed toward a unified definition and assessment of physical function.

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence‐based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health‐related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home‐based or community‐based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.