Faculty Bibliography

Lower extremity lymphedema is a chronic, often irreversible condition that affects many patients treated for gynecologic malignancies, with published rates as high as 70% in select populations. It has consistently been shown to affect multiple quality of life metrics. This review focuses on the pathophysiology, incidence, trends, and risk factors associated with lower extremity lymphedema secondary to the treatment of cervical, endometrial, ovarian, and vulvar cancers in the era of sentinel lymph node mapping. We review traditional and contemporary approaches to diagnosis and staging, and discuss new technologies and imaging modalities. Finally, we review the data-based treatment of lower extremity lymphedema and discuss experimental treatments currently being developed. This review highlights the need for more prospective studies and objective metrics, so that we may better evaluate and serve these patients.

OBJECTIVES:The objective of our study was to assess survival among patients with uterine serous carcinoma (USC) undergoing sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping alone versus patients undergoing systematic lymphadenectomy (LND). METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing primary surgical treatment for newly diagnosed USC at our institution from 1/1/1996-12/31/2017. Patients were assigned to either SLN mapping alone (SLN cohort) or systematic LND without SLN mapping (LND cohort). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, compared using Logrank test. RESULTS:245 patients were available for analysis: 79 (32.2%) underwent SLN, 166 (67.7%) LND. 132 (79.5%) in the LND cohort had paraaortic LND (PALND) versus none in the SLN cohort. Median age: 66 and 68 years in the SLN and LND cohorts, respectively (p>0.05). Proportion of stage I/II disease: 67.1% (n = 53) and 64.5% (n = 107) in the SLN and LND cohorts, respectively (p>0.05). Median follow-up: 23 (range, 1-96) and 66 months (range, 4-265) in the SLN and LND cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). Two-year OS in stage I/II disease (n = 160, 60.1%): 96.6% (SE ± 3.4) and 89.6% (SE ± 2.2) in the SLN and LND cohorts, respectively (p = 0.8). Two-year OS in stage III disease (n = 77): 73.6% (SE ± 10.2) and 77.3% (SE ± 5.8) in the SLN and LND cohorts, respectively (p = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS:SLN mapping alone and systematic LND yielded similar survival outcomes in stage I-III USC. In our practice, the SLN algorithm has replaced systematic LND as the primary staging modality in this setting.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to measure the extent to which race is associated with delayed initiation or receipt of inadequate chemotherapy among women with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS:We performed a systematic search of all articles published from January 1987 until June 2017 within four databases: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Eligible studies were US-based and examined the influence of race on chemotherapy delays, cessation, or dose reductions among women with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. Data were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS:A total of twelve studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Blacks were significantly more likely than whites to have delays to initiation of adjuvant therapy of 90 days or more (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.87; X² = 31.05, p < 0.00001; I² = 90%). There was no significant association between race and chemotherapy dosing. Due to overlap between studies assessing the relationship between race and completion of chemotherapy, we conducted two separate analyses. Black patients were significantly more likely to discontinue chemotherapy, however, this was no longer statistically significant when larger numbers of patients with more advanced (stage III) breast cancer were included. CONCLUSIONS:These results suggest that black breast cancer patients experience clinically relevant delays in the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy more often than white patients, which may in part explain the increased mortality observed among black patients.

Rising US health care costs have led to the creation of alternative payment and care-delivery models designed to maximize outcomes and/or minimize costs through changes in reimbursement and care delivery. The impact of these interventions in cancer care is unclear. This review was undertaken to describe the landscape of new alternative payment and care-delivery models in cancer care. In this systematic review, 22 alternative payment and/or care-delivery models in cancer care were identified. These included 6 bundled payments, 4 accountable care organizations, 9 patient-centered medical homes, and 3 other interventions. Only 12 interventions reported outcomes; the majority (n = 7; 58%) improved value, 4 had no impact, and 1 reduced value, but only initially. Heterogeneity of outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Despite the growth in alternative payment and delivery models in cancer, there is limited evidence to evaluate their efficacy. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.