BACKGROUND: Lymphedema imposes a significant economic and social burden in modern societies. Controversies about its risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment permeate the literature. The goal of this study was to assess experts\' opinions on the available literature on lymphedema while following the Delphi methodology.
METHODS: In December of 2019, the American Venous Forum created a working group tasked to develop a consensus statement regarding current practices for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema. A panel of experts was identified by the working group. The working group then compiled a list of clinical questions, risk factors, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment of lymphedema. Fifteen questions that met the criteria for consensus were included in the list. Using a modified Delphi methodology, six questions that received between 60% and 80% of the votes were included in the list for the second round of analysis. Consensus was reached whenever >70% agreement was achieved.
RESULTS: The panel of experts reached consensus that cancer, infection, chronic venous disease, and surgery are risk factors for secondary lymphedema. Consensus was also reached that clinical examination is adequate for diagnosing lymphedema and that all patients with chronic venous insufficiency (C3-C6) should be treated as lymphedema patients. No consensus was reached regarding routine clinical practice use of radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy as a mandatory diagnostic tool. However, the panel came to consensus regarding the importance of quantifying edema in all patients (93.6% in favor). In terms of treatment, consensus was reached favoring the regular use of compression garments to reduce lymphedema progression (89.4% in favor, 10.6% against; mean score of 79), but the use of Velcro devices as the first line of compression therapy did not reach consensus (59.6% in favor vs 40.4% against; total score of 15). There was agreement that sequential pneumatic compression should be considered as adjuvant therapy in the maintenance phase of treatment (91.5% in favor vs. 8.5% against; mean score of 85), but less so in its initial phases (61.7% in favor vs. 38.3% against; mean score of 27). Most of the panel agreed that manual lymphatic drainage should be a mandatory treatment modality (70.2% in favor), but the panel was split in half regarding the proposal that reductive surgery should be considered for patients with failed conservative treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process demonstrated that lymphedema experts agree on the majority of the statements related to risk factors for lymphedema, and the diagnostic workup for lymphedema patients. Less agreement was demonstrated on statements related to treatment of lymphedema. This consensus suggests that variability in lymphedema care is high even among the experts. Developers of future practice guidelines for lymphedema should consider this information, especially in cases of low-level evidence that supports practice patterns with which the majority of experts disagree.

Recognizing the increasing importance of lymphatic interventions, the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation brought together a multidisciplinary group of key opinion leaders in lymphatic medicine to define the priorities in lymphatic research. On February 21, 2020, SIRF convened a multidisciplinary Research Consensus Panel (RCP) of experts in the lymphatic field. During the meeting, the panel and audience discussed potential future research priorities. The panelists ranked the discussed research priorities based on clinical relevance, overall impact, and technical feasibility. The following research topics were prioritized by RCP: lymphatic decompression in patients with congestive heart failure, detoxification of thoracic duct lymph in acute illness, development of newer agents for lymphatic imaging, characterization of organ-based lymph composition, and development of lymphatic interventions to treat ascites in liver cirrhosis. The RCP priorities underscored that the lymphatic system plays an important role not only in the intrinsic lymphatic diseases but in conditions that traditionally are not considered to be lymphatic such as congestive heart failure, liver cirrhosis, and critical illness. The advancement of the research in these areas will lead the field of lymphatic interventions to the next level.

This study aims to analyze the published literatures on the effect of less radical fertility-preserving procedures, such as conization or simple trachelectomy, on oncological outcomes in IA1 cervical cancer patients with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) through a systematic-review.
The EMBASE and MEDLINE databases and Cochrane Library were searched for published studies reporting the oncological outcomes of conization/simple trachelectomy in these patients, through April 2017. The endpoints were recurrence and mortality rates. Data were presented as per the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Practice guidelines were generated via the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.
From 6,755 records, 94 full-texts articles were reviewed for eligibility, and five studies were included in this systematic review. All included studies were nonrandomized studies: two case-control studies comparing conization (n = 14) with hysterectomy (n = 24), and the other three were interrupted time series including conization (n = 20) and simple vaginal trachelectomy (n = 59). During the median follow-up duration of 43 months, no recurrence was reported in both conization and simple trachelectomy groups in IA1 patients with LVSI. From three studies reporting the fertility outcomes, the rates of pregnancy, live birth, preterm delivery, and second-trimester miscarriage were 73% (35/48), 64% (32/50), 10% (5/48), and 6% (3/48), respectively.
Results suggest that simple trachelectomy or conization could be performed for IA1 cervical cancer patients with LVSI who want to preserve fertility, although these results are only based on a small number of nonrandomized studies (recommendation grade 2 = weak; evidence level D = very low). Further randomized trials with long-term study period are needed to address this issue.

BACKGROUND: The ano-inguinal lymphatic drainage (AILD) is located in the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the proximal medial thigh. Findings from fluorescence methods give us new information about anatomical conditions of the AILD. Current contouring guidelines do not advise the inclusion of the \'true\' AILD into the clinical target volume (CTV). Aim of this work was the retrospective analysis of the incidental dose to the AILD in an anal cancer (AC) patient cohort who underwent definitive chemoradiation (CRT) therapy with Volumetric Arc Therapy - Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (VMAT-IMRT).
METHODS: VMAT-IMRT plans of 15 AC patients were analyzed. Based on findings from new fluorescence methods we created a new volume, the expected AILD. The examined dosimetric parameters were the minimal, maximal and mean dose and V10-V50 that were delivered to the AILD, respectively.
RESULTS: The median volume of AILD was 1047 cm³. Mean Dmin, Dmax and Dmean were 7.5 Gy, 58.9 Gy and 40.8 Gy for AILD. The clinical relevant dose of 30.0 Gray covered in mean 76% of the volume of the AILD, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Only 76% of the AILD-volume received at least an expected required treatment dose of 30 Gy incidentally. Concerning the low number of loco-regional relapses in AC patients after definitive CRT one has to balance increased side effects against a rigid oncological-anatomical interpretation of the local lymphatic drainage by including the AILD into the standard CTV.

OBJECTIVE: To review the normal physiology of the blood capillary-interstitial-lymphatic vessel interface, describe the pathophysiology of lymphedema secondary to treatment for breast cancer, and summarize the physiologic bases of the current National Lymphedema Network (NLN) risk reduction guidelines.
METHODS: Journal articles, anatomy and physiology textbooks, published research data, and Web sites.
RESULTS: Lymphedema occurring after treatment for breast cancer significantly affects physical, psychological, and sexual functioning. About 28% of breast cancer survivors develop lymphedema. When arterial capillary filtration exceeds lymphatic transport capacity, lymphedema occurs. NLN risk reduction guidelines may decrease lymphedema risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Lymphedema is chronic and disfiguring. Most NLN risk reduction guidelines, although not evidence-based, are based on sound physiologic principles. Evidence-based research of the effectiveness of NLN risk reduction guidelines is indicated.
CONCLUSIONS: Until evidence-based research contradicts NLN\'s risk reduction guidelines, nurses should inform patients with breast cancer about their risk for lymphedema, guidelines to reduce that risk, and the physiologic rationale for the guidelines.