Lymphedema is swelling that occurs when protein-rich lymph fluid accumulates in the interstitial tissue. This lymph fluid may contain plasma proteins, extravascular blood cells, excess water, and parenchymal products.  Lymphedema is one of the most poorly understood, relatively underestimated, and least researched complications of cancer or its treatment. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies published a report in 2006 recommending a “survivorship care plan” for cancer patients that incorporates information about late effects of treatment, health management behaviors, disease management, and recurrence monitoring.  The Institute of Medicine also highlighted critical shortfalls in the transition to survivorship, particularly in providing education about late effects of treatment.
Lymphedema is an important consideration for clinicians who care for cancer patients because of its relatively high frequency and significant functional and quality of life implications for patients. Lymphedema is an independent predictor of decreased quality of life, even when other predictive factors such as socioeconomic status, decreased range of motion, age, and obesity are taken into account. 
This summary will review issues related to anatomy and pathophysiology of lymphedema related to cancer, its clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment. Primary (congenital) lymphedema and non–cancer-related lymphedema (e.g., recurrent cellulitis, connective tissue disease, and infection) will not be reviewed here.
In this summary, unless otherwise stated, evidence and practice issues as they relate to adults are discussed. The evidence and application to practice related to children may differ significantly from information related to adults. When specific information about the care of children is available, it is summarized under its own heading.
The human lymphatic system generally includes superficial or primary lymphatic vessels that form a complex dermal network of capillarylike channels that drain into larger, secondary lymphatic vessels located in the subdermal space. These primary and secondary lymphatic vessels parallel the superficial veins and drain into a deeper third layer of lymphatic vessels located in the subcutaneous fat adjacent to the fascia. A muscular wall and numerous valves aid active, unidirectional lymphatic flow in secondary and subcutaneous lymphatic vessels. Primary lymphatic vessels lack a muscular wall and do not have valves. An intramuscular system of lymphatic vessels that parallels the deep arteries and drains the muscular compartment, joints, and synovium also exists. The superficial and deep lymphatic systems probably function independently, except in abnormal states, although there is evidence that they communicate near lymph nodes.  Lymph drains from the lower limbs into the lumbar lymphatic trunk, which joins the intestinal lymphatic trunk and cisterna chyli to form the thoracic duct that empties into the left subclavian vein. The lymphatic vessels of the left arm drain into the left subclavian lymphatic trunk and then into the left subclavian vein. Lymph channels of the right arm drain into the right subclavian lymphatic trunk and then into the right subclavian vein.
One function of the lymphatic system is to return excess fluid and protein from interstitial spaces to the blood vascular system. Because lymphatic vessels often lack a basement membrane, they can resorb molecules too large for venous uptake. Mechanisms of clinical edema include increased arteriovenous capillary filtration and reduced interstitial fluid absorption. Causes of increased capillary filtration include increased hydrostatic pressure in capillaries, decreased tissue pressure, and increased membrane permeability. Reduced interstitial fluid resorption can be caused by decreased plasma oncotic pressure, increased oncotic pressure of tissue fluid, and lymphatic obstruction. Anatomy of the lymph system showing the lymph vessels and lymph organs, including the lymph nodes, tonsils, thymus, spleen, and bone marrow. Lymph (clear fluid) and lymphocytes travel through the lymph vessels and into the lymph nodes where the lymphocytes destroy harmful substances. The lymph enters the blood through a large vein near the heart.
The onset of secondary lymphedema is often insidious. However, it may be suddenly provoked by local inflammation from causes such as infection or limb injury. Therefore, patients should be evaluated for evidence of cellulitis. Classically, lymphedema is characterized by nonpitting swelling of an extremity, usually with involvement of the digits. Early stages of lymphedema manifest with pitting edema until fibrosis develops. The distribution of the swelling may be restricted only in the proximal or distal portion of the limb. Lymphedema may also predispose to recurrent skin infections. 
Lymphedema can and does occur in the trunk, in addition to the limbs. For example, radiation therapy to the chest wall is associated with the development of edema specifically in the irradiated breast.   Some reports suggest a lymphedema prevalence rate as high as 75% in patients with cancers of the head and neck, with risk factors being high-dose radiation and combined surgery. 
Patients with lymphedema may report a wide variety of complaints, including heaviness or fullness related to the weight of the limb, a tight sensation of the skin, or decreased flexibility of the affected joint. The texture of the skin may become hyperkeratotic, with verrucous and vesicular skin lesions. With upper-extremity involvement, the patient may have difficulty fitting the affected area into clothing or wearing previously well-fitting rings, watches, or bracelets. Similar difficulties with lower-extremity lymphedema include a sensation of tightness or difficulty wearing shoes, itching of the legs or toes, burning sensation in the legs, or sleep disturbance and loss of hair. Ambulation can be affected because of the increased size and weight of the affected limb. Activities of daily living, hobbies, and the ability to perform previous work tasks may also be affected.
Breast cancer survivors with arm lymphedema have been found to be more disabled, experience a poorer quality of life, and have more psychological distress than do survivors without lymphedema.   In addition, women reporting swelling have reported significantly lower quality of life with multiple functional assessments. 
Lymphedema can occur after any cancer or its treatment that affects lymph node drainage. It has been reported to occur within days and up to 30 years after treatment for breast cancer.  Eighty percent of patients experience onset within 3 years of surgery; the remainder develop edema at a rate of 1% per year.  Upper-extremity lymphedema most often occurs after breast cancer; lower-extremity lymphedema most often occurs with uterine cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, or melanoma.  A large population-based study supports the evidence that lower-limb lymphedema is experienced by a significant proportion of women after treatment for gynecological cancer, with the highest prevalence (36%) among vulvar cancer survivors and the lowest prevalence (5%) among ovarian cancer survivors. 
There is no consistency in the data on the incidence and prevalence of lymphedema after breast cancer, probably because of differences in diagnosis, the different characteristics of the patients studied, and inadequate follow-up to capture delayed development of the disorder. The overall incidence of arm lymphedema can range from 8% to 56% at 2 years postsurgery.  In a longitudinal substudy of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG)/Alliance Z1071 breast cancer trial, patient reports of 3-year cumulative incidence of arm swelling and arm heaviness were actually lower than the objective findings. 
It is important to diagnose and treat lymphedema when it is mild because those with mild lymphedema make up the cohort that gives rise to preventable severe, debilitating lymphedema. Women with mild lymphedema are more than three times as likely to develop severe lymphedema than are women with no lymphedema. 
Patients undergoing axillary surgery and/or axillary radiation therapy for breast cancer are at higher risk for developing lymphedema of the arm. Previous convention suggested that nodal positivity was a predisposing factor for the development of lymphedema in breast cancer patients.  Controlling for axillary radiation, one study actually found an inverse relationship between nodal positivity and arm volume. 
Compared with axillary sampling alone, partial or total mastectomy followed by full axillary lymph node dissection significantly increases a patient’s chance of developing arm edema. For example, in one series of 100 women who underwent partial or total mastectomy and then full axillary lymph node dissection or axillary sampling, arm edema developed in more patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection compared with sampling alone (30% vs. none).  In addition, the extent of axillary lymph node dissection increases the risk for developing arm edema. For example, in one series involving 381 women undergoing segmental mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection, women who had ten or more lymph nodes removed were more likely than women who had few lymph nodes in the specimen to develop arm symptoms within the first year (53% vs. 33%) and within the next 2 years (33% vs. 20%). 
For patients with breast cancer, sentinel lymph node dissection has gained favor over axillary lymph node dissection for the axillary staging of early disease because of decreased morbidity and because of the questionable survival benefits of axillary lymph node dissection, as shown in a phase III randomized study (ACOSOG-Z0011) of axillary lymph node dissection in women who had stage I or IIA breast cancer and a positive sentinel node.  [Level of evidence: I] Several studies have shown that lymphedema is more prevalent in breast cancer patients who undergo axillary lymph node dissection than in those who undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy.  [Level of evidence: II] One study evaluated 30 patients with unilateral invasive breast carcinoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy and 30 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection. This study found a 20% rate of developing lymphedema in the axillary lymph node dissection group compared with none in the sentinel lymph node biopsy group.  Rates of lymphedema among women who undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy have been reported to be between 5% and 17%, depending on the diagnostic threshold and length of follow-up.    The majority of diagnosed lymphedema is mild.  [Level of evidence: II]
Among all breast cancer patients, being obese or overweight may predispose women to developing lymphedema after treatment for breast cancer.   [Level of evidence: I] A well-conducted prospective study followed 138 breast cancer patients for 30 months postdiagnosis. Individuals with body mass indices of 30 or higher at the time of diagnosis were 3.6 times more likely to develop lymphedema, but weight gain after diagnosis was not related. 
Some studies have correlated the degree of lymphedema with the level of obesity.  [Level of evidence: I] Similarly, among young breast cancer survivors, persistent swelling was related to having more lymph nodes removed and being obese. 
The dose-response relationship between obesity and risk for lymphedema onset is not known. There have also been no studies to determine whether weight loss among patients at risk for developing lymphedema would reduce risk. At this time, it is not possible to advise patients regarding the dose-response relationship of weight loss and risk reduction or the body weight associated with lowest risk of incident lymphedema.
Other risk factors for developing lymphedema include the following:
Roughly one-third of breast cancer patients (and a majority of African Americans with breast cancer) present with regional disease and positive lymph nodes,  thus requiring complete axillary lymph node dissection; many undergo further irradiation of their axillary and supraclavicular lymph node beds. Lymphedema is a persistent adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that will continue to occur long into the future, despite increasing use of sentinel lymph node biopsy procedures.
Historically, those at risk for lymphedema have been advised to avoid using the affected limb. The reasoning for this clinical advice seems to arise from the notion that the removal of lymph nodes altered the response of the affected area to inflammation, infection, injury, and trauma—therefore, it would be wise to avoid stressing the limb. However, exercise has a different effect on the body at lower doses than it does at higher doses; extreme exercise would promote inflammation and injury and should be avoided in patients at risk for lymphedema.  By contrast, slowly progressive, carefully controlled increases in physiologic stress on a limb at risk for lymphedema may actually provide protection for real-life situations that require taxing that body part (e.g., carrying grocery bags, doing holiday shopping, or lifting a child).  Therefore, physiologic evidence exists to question the historic advice to restrict use of the affected limb.
Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that upper-body exercise does NOT result in increased onset of lymphedema among breast cancer survivors.   ;    The largest of these studies (N = 204)  [Level of evidence: I] measured the arms of women before breast surgery with axillary node dissection and randomly assigned participants to one of two rehabilitation programs:
At the end of 2 years of postsurgical follow-up, the incidence of new lymphedema was 13% in both groups. Of note, the single most important predictor of lymphedema onset in this large study was obesity. 
Another large (N = 134 completers) randomized study compared a 1-year weight-lifting intervention with a no-exercise control group for breast cancer survivors who had unilateral disease and at least two lymph nodes removed. No patients had evidence of lymphedema at baseline. A progressive weight-lifting program did not result in an increased incidence of lymphedema. The study was designed as an equivalence trial but noted a lower incidence of lymphedema in the weight-training group (11% vs. 17%, with a significant difference of 7% vs. 22%, for those with five or more lymph nodes removed). 
Patients with and at risk for lymphedema should be evaluated by a certified lymphedema therapist to ensure it is safe to proceed with exercise of the affected body part. (Refer to the Lymphology Association of North America website for referrals to certified lymphedema therapists in locations across the United States.)
Patients who have lymphedema should wear a well-fitting compression garment during all exercise that uses the affected limb or body part. If there are questions regarding whether lymphedema is present, there is no evidence as to whether use of a garment will be helpful or harmful. Garments must be well fitted to be useful, are costly, may not be covered by insurance without a clear diagnosis, and must be replaced every 6 months. Among women with an unclear diagnosis, it is likely that the risk of avoiding upper-body activity outweighs the risk of engaging in slowly progressive upper-body activity without a garment. Patients without lymphedema do NOT need to wear a garment while doing exercise with the at-risk limb.
Evidence from studies with breast cancer survivors suggests that upper-body exercise among women with and at risk for lymphedema should start at a very low intensity and progress slowly and according to symptom response.  ;  [Level of evidence: I] There should be a certified lymphedema specialist to whom these women can be referred if there is a need for evaluation of possible flare-ups or onsets. If there is a break in exercise of a week or longer, it is strongly recommended that women decrease the intensity of activity with the upper body and then increase it again gradually. Changes in symptoms (increased heaviness, achiness, puffiness, swelling) that last a week or longer should be evaluated for possible onsets or flare-ups. It is likely that starting at low intensity and progressing slowly is better for the affected limb than is avoiding activity.
Lymphedema is typically evident by clinical findings such as nonpitting edema, usually with involvement of the digits, in a patient with known risk factors such as previous axillary dissection. Other causes of limb swelling, including deep venous thrombosis, malignancy, and infection, should be considered in the differential diagnosis and excluded with appropriate studies, if indicated.
If the diagnosis is not evident on the basis of clinical assessment, imaging of the lymphatic system with lymphoscintigraphy (radionuclide imaging) may be necessary. Lymphangiography is generally no longer a favored diagnostic test and may be contraindicated in patients with malignancy because of concern that it may contribute to metastatic spread of tumor. Additional imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging may complement information obtained via lymphoscintigraphy by providing anatomic and nodal detail. 
The wide variety of methods described in the literature for evaluating limb volume and lack of standardization makes it difficult for the clinician to assess the at-risk limb. Options include water displacement, tape measurement, infrared scanning, and bioelectrical impedance measures. 
The most widely used method to diagnose upper-extremity lymphedema is circumferential upper-extremity measurement using specific anatomical landmarks.  Arm circumference measures are used to estimate volume differences between the affected and unaffected arms. Sequential measurements are taken at four points on both arms: the metacarpal-phalangeal joints, the wrist, 10 cm distal to the lateral epicondyles, and 15 cm proximal to the lateral epicondyles. Differences of 2 cm or more at any point compared with the contralateral arm are considered by some experts to be clinically significant. However, measuring specific differences between arms may have limited clinical relevance because of implications, for example, of a 3-cm difference between the arm of an obese woman and the arm of a thin woman. In addition, there can be inherent anatomic variations in circumference between the dominant and nondominant limb related to differences in muscle mass and variations after breast cancer treatment that may occur with atrophy of the ipsilateral arm or hypertrophy of the contralateral arm.  A small study comparing various methods of assessing upper-limb lymphedema did not show any superiority of any one method.  Sequential measurements over time, including pretreatment measurements, may prove to be more clinically meaningful.
The water displacement method is another way to evaluate arm edema. A volume difference of 200 mL or more between the affected and opposite arms is typically considered to be a cutoff point to define lymphedema. 
One common method of lymphedema classification uses three stages based on severity.  Stage I is spontaneously reversible and typically is marked by pitting edema, increase in upper-extremity girth, and heaviness. Stage II is characterized by a spongy consistency of the tissue without signs of pitting edema. Tissue fibrosis can then cause the limbs to harden and increase in size.  Stage III, also called lymphostatic elephantiasis, is the most advanced stage, but is rarely seen following breast cancer treatment. 
Another commonly used approach to classifying lymphedema is the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE), which were developed for grading adverse events in the context of clinical trials.  A key advantage of the CTCAE approach is that it includes both objective measures (interlimb discrepancy) and subjective, clinical assessments in diagnosing lymphedema. This allows for the very real possibility that a patient could have clinically meaningful, treatable lymphedema isolated to a segment of his or her limb that would not meet objective interlimb discrepancy criteria, but which could still be graded according to severity by signs and symptoms, as follows:
Ideally, prevention should begin before treatment, by educating the patient and family in a sensitive fashion about the potential risk of developing lymphedema. Proceeding in this way may diminish a breast cancer survivor’s dissatisfaction with the educational information received about lymphedema, and could serve as a foundation for making decisions and coping with lymphedema, should it develop later.  Patients should be taught to recognize the early signs of edema because treatment outcomes may be significantly improved if the problem is detected early. 
Refer to the Exercise does not increase risk of lymphedema onset subsection in the Risk Factors section of this summary for more information.
Generally anecdotal recommendations for taking preventive measures include the following:Hygiene: Skin and Nail Care
The goal of lymphedema treatment centers on controlling limb swelling and minimizing complications; the underlying lymphatic vessel interruption cannot be corrected. Because clinical trials evaluating pharmacologic measures are generally not found to be effective, nonpharmacologic measures are the mainstay of treatment, with the goal of maximizing the activities of daily living, decreasing pain, increasing range of motion, and improving function.
Nonfatiguing exercises may induce sufficient muscle contraction to move lymph into terminal lymphangioles and reduce swelling. Aerobic exercise may also increase the tone of the sympathetic nervous system, which causes the lymph collector vessels to pump more vigorously.  Multiple studies indicate that exercise, including upper-body exercise, is safe for women with breast cancer–related lymphedema. 
There is also evidence that slowly progressive weight lifting among women with previously diagnosed breast cancer–related lymphedema leads to a reduction by half of the likelihood of a clinically meaningful exacerbation of lymphedema (a flare-up) that requires treatment by a physical therapist.  [Level of evidence: I] A group of 141 breast cancer survivors with lymphedema were randomly assigned to a twice-weekly, year-long weight-lifting intervention (N = 71) or to a wait-list comparison group (N = 70). The intervention started with 13 weeks of supervised training with little to no resistance; the amount of weight lifted was increased very gradually and only if there was no change in lymphedema symptoms or swelling. The participants all wore well-fitting, custom-made compression garments that were replaced 6 months into the intervention period. Women with breast cancer–related lymphedema should be guided to work with a certified fitness professional or physical therapist to learn the proper biomechanical form for upper-body weight-lifting exercises before undertaking this program on their own. (The specifics of the intervention are available to certified fitness professionals and physical therapists through the National Lymphedema Network.) Further research is needed to develop a version of this intervention that can be broadly disseminated.
One small pilot study has examined the safety of an intervention similar to that described above in cancer survivors with lower-extremity lymphedema secondary to melanoma or gynecologic or urological cancers. In this uncontrolled pilot study, 20% of participants developed a cellulitic infection within the first 2 months after starting a slowly progressive weight-lifting regimen.  Further research is needed to determine whether weight-lifting is a safe exercise modality for cancer survivors with lower-extremity lymphedema.
Gradient pressure garments (also known as lymphedema sleeves or stockings) generate greater pressures distally than proximally, which enhances mobilization of edema fluid. Some patients may require custom-made sleeves to achieve an appropriate fit. The use of these garments may be especially important at high altitudes, such as during air travel, because the ambient atmospheric pressure is less than the outlet transcapillary pressure within the superficial tissues, which can lead to worsening edema.
Bandaging involves the use of inelastic material to discourage reaccumulation of lymph by reducing capillary ultrafiltration and optimizing the efficacy of the intrinsic muscle pump. Bandaging may change an initially resistant limb to one with less edema, resulting in decreased limb volume and allowing a garment to be applied successfully.  [Level of evidence: I]
The goal of skin care is to minimize dermal colonization by bacteria and fungus, especially in the crevices, and hydrate the skin to control dryness and cracking.
Complex decongestive therapy is a multimodality program that consists of manual lymphedema drainage therapy, low-stretch bandaging, exercises, and skin care.  This approach has been recommended as a primary treatment by consensus panels and as an effective therapy for lymphedema unresponsive to standard elastic compression therapy.  
Complex decongestive therapy is divided into two successive phases. The first phase consists of intensive treatment to allow substantive reduction of lymphedema volume. The second phase consists of maintenance treatment at home. Compliance with the use of the elastic sleeve and low-stretch bandage has been found to be an important determinant of success with maintenance therapy at home.  Complex decongestive therapy has also been shown to improve lymphedema following groin dissection.  Patients should be referred to a properly trained therapist for optimal results.
Intermittent external pneumatic compression may also provide additional improvement with lymphedema management when used adjunctively with decongestive lymphatic therapy. One small randomized trial of 23 women with new breast cancer–associated lymphedema found an additional significant volume reduction when compared with manual lymphatic drainage alone (45% vs. 26%).  [Level of evidence: I] Similarly, improvements were also found in the maintenance phase of therapy. Concerns regarding the use of intermittent pneumatic compression include the optimum amount of pressure and treatment schedule and whether maintenance therapy is needed after the initial reduction in edema.  [Level of evidence: I] There is a theoretical concern that pressures higher than 60 mmHg and long-term use may actually injure lymphatic vessels.
No chronic pharmacologic therapy is recommended for patients with lymphedema. Diuretics are typically of little benefit and may promote intravascular volume depletion because the lymphedema fluid cannot be easily mobilized into the vascular space. Coumarin is associated with significant hepatotoxicity and has not been found to have any benefit in controlled trials.  Antibiotics should be used promptly for patients with evidence of cellulitis; intravenous use may sometimes be required for severe cellulitis, lymphangitis, or septicemia.
The results of a small randomized trial have suggested that breast cancer–related lymphedema may improve with weight loss.  [Level of evidence: I] The mechanism by which obesity may predispose to lymphedema is unclear, but proposed mechanisms include an increased risk of postoperative complications, including infection, reduced muscle pumping efficiency, and separation of lymphatic channels by subcutaneous fat.  A larger, longer-term weight-loss intervention in cancer patients with lymphedema (including those with lower-extremity disease) is warranted to further explore weight loss for disease management.
Studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be effective in reducing lymphedema in a clinically meaningful way for some women.  [Level of evidence: I]   Two cycles of laser treatment were found to be effective in reducing the volume of the affected arm, extracellular fluid, and tissue hardness in approximately one-third of patients with postmastectomy lymphedema at 3 months posttreatment.  Suggested rationales for laser therapy include a potential decrease in fibrosis, stimulation of macrophages and the immune system, and a possible role in encouraging lymphangiogenesis. 
Surgery is rarely performed on patients who have cancer-related lymphedema. The primary surgical method for treating lymphedema consists of removing the subcutaneous fat and fibrous tissue with or without creation of a dermal flap within the muscle to encourage superficial-to-deep lymphatic anastomoses. These methods have not been evaluated in prospective trials, with adequate results for only 30% of patients in one retrospective review. In addition, many patients face complications such as skin necrosis, infection, and sensory abnormalities.  The oncology patient is usually not a candidate for these procedures. Other surgical options include the following:
Manual lymphedema therapy, a type of massage technique, involves the use of a very light superficial massage with gentle, rhythmic skin distention, ideally limited to pressures of approximately 30 mmHg to 45 mmHg.  In comparison to many other massage techniques, manual lymphedema therapy is very light to the touch. The strokes often feel like a “brushing” technique. Manual lymphedema therapy decreases congested lymph nodes by directing it to the circulatory and lymphatic system.  Manual lymphedema therapy begins on unaffected areas to direct the lymph away from the affected extremity.
A limited number of trials have been conducted among women with breast cancer who are experiencing lymphedema. These trials have reported significant reductions in limb volume when manual lymphedema therapy is administered as the sole intervention or as an adjunct to standard of care.    [Level of evidence: I] However, large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
Manual lymphedema therapy should be introduced in a closely supervised medical setting, by a clinician specifically trained in manual lymphedema therapy.  No adverse events have been reported in the pilot studies that administered manual lymphedema therapy to women with breast cancer. The reported adverse events are associated with the general discipline of massage therapy and are largely related to treatments delivered by unlicensed massage therapists or treatments that include deep and rigorous massage techniques. Manual lymphatic therapy, also known as manual lymphatic drainage, can be taught to patients for self-care.
Despite the safety profile, the following special precautions should be considered when massage therapy is delivered to individuals with cancer:
Additional integrative modalities have been under investigation for their role in the treatment of secondary lymphedema. Selenium has been studied in clinical trial NCT00188604, and acupuncture and moxibustion have been studied in clinical trial LJMC-AMWELL-SL as treatments for lymphedema.
If lymphedema is massive and refractory to treatment, or has an onset several years after the primary surgery without obvious trauma, a search for other etiologies should be undertaken. Of particular importance is exclusion of the recurrence of tumor or the development of lymphangiosarcoma, which should be excluded with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. The complication of lymphangiosarcoma is classically seen in the postmastectomy lymphedematous arm (Stewart-Treves syndrome). The mean time between mastectomy and lymphangiosarcoma is 10.2 years, with a median survival of 1.3 years. Clinically, the lesions of lymphangiosarcoma may initially appear as blue-red or purple with a macular or papular shape in the skin. Multiple lesions are common; subcutaneous nodules may appear and should be carefully evaluated in the patient who has chronic lymphedema. 
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.
Added text to state that some reports suggest a lymphedema prevalence rate as high as 75% in patients with cancers of the head and neck, with risk factors being high-dose radiation and combined surgery (cited Deng et al. as reference 8).
Added text to state that in a longitudinal substudy of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group/Alliance Z1071 breast cancer trial, patient reports of 3-year cumulative incidence of arm swelling and arm heaviness were actually lower than the objective findings (cited Armer et al. as reference 15).
This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Supportive and Palliative Care Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® - NCI's Comprehensive Cancer Database pages.
This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the pathophysiology and treatment of lymphedema. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.
This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Supportive and Palliative Care Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:
Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.
The lead reviewers for Lymphedema are:
Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website's Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.
Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Supportive and Palliative Care Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.
PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”
The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:
PDQ® Supportive and Palliative Care Editorial Board. PDQ Lymphedema. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/side-effects/lymphedema/lymphedema-hp-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 26389244]
Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.
The information in these summaries should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.
More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.