Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis: international Delphi consensus-based recommendations

A topical BRAF inhibitor (LUT-014) for treatment of radiodermatitis among women with breast cancer

Background

Modern radiotherapy is associated with dermatitis (RD) in approximately one-third of patients treated for breast cancer. There is currently no standard for treating RD.

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine whether LUT014, a topical BRAF inhibitor which paradoxically activates mitogen-activated protein kinase, can safely improve RD.

Methods

A phase I/II study was designed to first follow a small cohort of women with grade 2 RD regarding toxicity and response. Then, 20 patients were randomized to compare LUT014 to "vehicle" relative to safety and response (measured with common terminology criteria for adverse events, Dermatology Life Quality Index).

Results

No substantial toxicity (eg, 0 serious adverse event) was associated with LUT014. All 8 women receiving LUT014 achieved treatment success (5-point Dermatology Life Quality Index reduction at day 14) compared to 73% (8/11) on the placebo arm (P = .591). The time to complete recovery was shorter in the treatment arm.

Limitations

The sample size was limited. Only 2 hospitals were included.

Conclusions

Topical LU014 is tolerable and may be efficacious for grade 2 RD.

Amelioration of Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients by a Bioadhesive Barrier-Forming Gel (Episil): A Single-Center, Open, Parallel, Randomized, Phase I/II Controlled Trial

Episil is a bioadhesive barrier-forming liquid gel that can relieve mucositis caused by radiotherapy (RT) and effectively relieve pain. The purpose of this trial is to compare the efficacy and safety of Episil in improving acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in patients with breast cancer. This study included patients who met the criteria for postoperative RT for breast cancer. The primary end point was the grade of RD during treatment. A total of 102 patients were included in this study. The patients were grouped in a 2:1 ratio using the randomized number table method: 67 patients received Episil combined with conventional skin care (the Episil group), whereas the remaining 35 patients served as the control group and received conventional skin care only (the control group). According to the grading criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), the skin reaction rate and severity were significantly better in the Episil group than the control group (24.62%, 72.31%, 3.08, 0, 0 vs. 0, 85.71%, 14.29%, 0, 0, 0) across grades 0 to 4 (P < 0.05). The itchiness score exhibited s significant reduction in the Episil group as compared with the control group (P < 0.05). The results of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) showed that the overall health (z = -5.855, P < 0.001) and overall quality of life (z = -6.583, P < 0.001) were better in the Episil group than the control group after RT. Overall, in patients with breast cancer receiving RT, the topical application of Episil may significantly reduce the grading of ARD, alleviate patient symptoms, and improve the patient's overall quality of life.

Evolution of radiation-induced dermatitis treatment

Radiation-induced skin damage (RID) is the most prevalent, significant side effect of radiotherapy (RT). Nearly 95% of patients experience moderate to severe skin reactions after receiving radiation therapy. However, criteria for acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) treatment remain unavailable. Topical agents with anti-inflammatory properties may protect the skin and facilitate tissue regeneration in patients with RID. Many of these topical agents function through nuclear factor kappa B pathway regulation. They either reduce the levels of inflammatory factors or elicit anti-inflammatory properties of their own, thus preventing oxidative stress and inflammatory responses and thus enabling RID prevention and management. Herein, we explore the 25 topical agents investigated for RID prevention and management thus far and evaluate their mechanisms of action. These agents include 11 natural agents, 3 miscellaneous agents, 9 topical nonsteroidal agents, and 2 topical corticosteroids.

Decrease of radiation-induced skin reactions in breast cancer patients by preventive application of film dressings-a systematic review

PURPOSE

Radiation-induced skin reactions remain one of the most frequent side effects of adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer, which is the most common global malignancy. In individual cases, we observed a decrease in radiation dermatitis under film dressings used for skin marking purposes. Therefore, we decided to revise the available evidence regarding the prophylactic use of film dressings to reduce radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

On 20 March 2023, we conducted a systematic review of literature for randomized controlled trials published in the English, German, French, or Spanish language, available in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Of 82 publications, 9 full texts were assessed and 6 randomized controlled trials were included in the final synthesis. Two trials analyzed the application of polyurethane film (Hydrofilm, Paul Hartmann AG, Heidenheim, Germany), the other four of silicone-based polyurethane film (Mepitel film, Molnlycke Health Care Limited, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom). The evaluation scales Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS) were used for assessment. All six trials, with a total of 788 patients yielding data for analysis, demonstrate a significant decrease in radiation-induced skin reactions by use of the film (mainly p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates a significant decrease in radiation-induced skin reactions by prophylactically applied film dressings in breast cancer patients. Consequent preventive use of film dressings might systematically reduce acute radiation-induced skin reactions in these patients.

Non-invasive physical plasma for preventing radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: Results from an intrapatient-randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Background and Purpose

To investigate the effect of topical non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP), a volatile mix generated out of ambient air, on prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) during and after whole-breast irradiation (WBI).

Materials and Methods

Lateral and medial breast halves were randomised within each patient to receive either 120 s of NIPP or sham treatment daily during WBI. Standard skin care with urea lotion was applied to the whole breast. Blinded acute skin toxicity was assessed weekly for each breast half separately and included clinician- (CTCAE) and patient-reported (modified RISRAS), and objective (spectrophotometry) assessments. As an additional external control, a comparable standard of care (SoC) patient collective from a previous prospective trial was used.

Results

Sixty-four patients were included. There were no significant differences between breast halves. Post-hoc comparison with a similar SoC control collective revealed OR = 0.28 (95% CI 0.11-0.76; p = 0.014) for grade ≥ 2 RD upon WBI completion, along with less hyperpigmentation (p < 0.001), oedema (p = 0.020), dry (p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (p = 0.017), pain, itching, and burning (p < 0.001 for each). Tolerability of NIPP was excellent and side effects were not observed.

Conclusion

Even though there were no differences between intrapatient-randomised breast halves, the overall incidence and severity of acute radiation-induced skin toxicity were considerably lower when compared to a prospectively collected SoC cohort. Our data suggest the potential benefit of NIPP in RD prevention. A randomised trial with a physical control group is warranted to confirm these promising results (DRKS00026225).

Head and neck cancer patients under radiotherapy undergoing skin application of hydrogel dressing or hyaluronic acid: results from a prospective, randomized study

PURPOSE

Acute radiodermatitis (ARD) is a frequent side effect of radiotherapy, a therapeutic option for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). It is responsible for pain, quality of life (QoL) impairment, and increased risk of treatment discontinuation, which may compromise the prognosis for patients. Local therapies to prevent or alleviate ARD have been proposed without providing any high level of evidence to establish recommendations.

METHODS

We implemented a prospective multicenter randomized study on patients with HNSCC treated with definitive radiotherapy to assess the impact on ear, nose, and throat (ENT) pain of the application of a hydrogel-based skin dressing (HydroTac®) compared with the application of hyaluronic acid (Ialuset®) during radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Out of 130 enrolled patients, 48 patients per group were assessable for the main endpoint. No difference between groups was found: a worsening of ENT pain of 3 points or more on a visual analog scale from the initiation to 1 month after the end of the radiotherapy was observed for 8 patients (16.7%) who received HydroTac® compared to 13 patients (27%) who received Ialuset® (p = 0.342). The proportion of patients who experienced ARD and grades of ARD (CTCAE v4.0 criteria) were similar between groups. Patient compliance with radiodermatitis treatment was poor, with 56.1% of patients in the HydroTac® group having their treatment temporarily stopped.

CONCLUSION

The application of a hydrogel dressing to prevent ARD during radiotherapy for HNSCC patients has failed to demonstrate a benefit. These results may be limited by the difficulties of applying the dressing.

Perceptions of healthcare professionals on the use of Mepitel Film for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials support Mepitel Film (MF) as a prophylactic treatment for radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients undergoing breast radiotherapy. Although several studies have canvassed the opinion of patients on using MF, no such studies have been done to investigate the perception of healthcare professionals (HCPs). The objective of this study was therefore to investigate the perceptions of HCPs on MF as a treatment option for RD.

METHODS

Anonymized responses to a web-based survey sent to HCPs at a single institution managing patients using MF during breast radiotherapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 28 HCPs contacted, 22 completed the survey, including 6 radiation oncologists (ROs), 11 radiation therapists (RTTs), and 5 nurses. Most HCPs reported MF was better at preventing severe RD than the standard of care and improved radiation-induced skin reactions (n = 20/22, 91%, and n = 19/22, 86%, respectively). MF was recommended for mastectomy patients without reconstruction (n = 15/21, 71%). The majority of HCPs believed that patients' families could be trained to apply and remove MF (n = 19/22, 86%). Many HCPs perceived that implementation of MF would be difficult in terms of maintaining patient flow and wide-scale implementation within their institution (n = 11/22, 50%, and n = 10/22, 46%, respectively). Most HCPs perceived that fewer than 50% of their patients could afford MF if priced at $100 CAD (n = 15/20, 75%).

CONCLUSION

These findings provide insights into the possibility of MF to be incorporated into standard practice of care for RD. Although most HCPs were satisfied with MF as a prophylactic treatment for RD, there are concerns about its resource-intensive operationalization and financial accessibility to patients. Future research should focus on ways to improve HCP experience with MF and to improve its implementation into clinical settings as standard of care.

Do Barrier Films Impact Long-Term Skin Toxicity following Whole-Breast Irradiation? Objective Follow-Up of Two Randomised Trials

Purpose: Hydrofilm, a polyurethane-based barrier film, can be used to prevent acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in adjuvant whole-breast irradiation (WBI) for breast cancer. This cost-effective prophylactic measure is currently being recommended to a growing number of patients, yet long-term safety data and its impact on late radiation-induced skin toxicity such as pigmentation changes and fibrosis have not been investigated. Methods: We objectively evaluated patients who were previously enrolled in either of two intrapatient-randomised (lateral versus medial breast halve) controlled trials on the use of Hydrofilm for RD prevention (DRKS00029665; registered on 19 July 2022). Results: Sixty-two patients (47.7% of the initial combined sample size) provided consent for this post-hoc examination, with a median follow-up time (range) of 58 (37-73) months. Following WBI, there was a significant increase in yellow skin tones of the entire breast when compared to baseline measurements before WBI (p < 0.001) and a significant increase of cutis, subcutis, and oedema thickness (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.004, respectively). At follow-up, there were no significant differences in either pigmentation changes or skin fibrosis between the Hydrofilm and standard of care breast halves. Conclusion: These data suggest that Hydrofilm can be safely used in the context of acute RD prevention, without affecting late side effects, supporting its widespread use.

A novel, multi-active emollient for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of a novel, multi-active emollient in preventing and managing acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in breast cancer patients undergoing moderate hypofractionated (HF) radiotherapy (RT) compared to standard of care.

METHODSA

A monocentric, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) with breast cancer patients receiving moderate HF (dose: 40.05-55.86 Gy, fractions: 15-21) was conducted between January 2022 and May 2023. The experimental group received the novel emollient, while the control group received the standard skin care. Patients applied the skin care products twice daily during the complete RT course. The primary outcome was the severity of ARD at the final RT session measured by the modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria. Secondary outcomes included patient symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients with 50 patients per group were enrolled. In the control group, 50% of the patients developed RTOG grade 1 ARD and 48% grade 2 or higher, while in the experimental group, the severity of ARD was significantly lower with 82% grade 1 and 16% grade 2 ARD (P = .013, χ2-test). The frequency and severity of xerosis were significantly lower in the experimental compared to the control group (Ps ≤ .036, Mann Whiney U test). The impact of ARD on the QoL was low, and treatment satisfaction was high in both groups, with no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

This RCT shows that the novel, multi-active emollient significantly reduced the ARD RTOG grade. Research in a more diverse patient population is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04929808 (11/06/2021).

Barrier films for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common side effect of adjuvant whole-breast or chest wall irradiation, majorly impacting quality of life in numerous patients. The use of barrier films (polyurethane dressings such as Hydrofilm® and Mepitel® film remaining on the skin for the duration of the radiation treatment) has been investigated as a prophylactic measure in several prospective trials. Here, we critically appraise the available evidence behind preventive barrier film application in the context of breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

International literature was reviewed and high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The results of 5 RCTs (663 patients; >90% Caucasian) were analysed. Overall, barrier films lead to improved clinician- and patient-reported outcomes: fewer grade ≥2 RD (11% vs. 42%; OR = 0.16; p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (2% vs. 16%; OR = 0.12; p = 0.006), as well as less patient-reported pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0.51; p < 0.001), itching (SMD -0.52; p = 0.001), burning (SMD -0.41; p = 0.011), and limitations in daily activities (SMD -0.20; p = 0.007). Furthermore, barrier films have a high acceptance rate among patients, as well as a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Possible side effects due to its application are mild and mostly self-limiting. Overall, there was a lack of information on the radiation treatment techniques used.

CONCLUSION

The evidence presented in this meta-analysis suggests that barrier films are an excellent tool in the prevention of RD among Caucasian patients receiving whole-breast or chest wall irradiation. Its use should therefore be considered routinely in these patients.

Shedding light on the management of acute radiation dermatitis: insight from the MASCC Oncodermatology study group

This paper highlights a collection of eleven recently published manuscripts on the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis. These meta-analyses provide additional evidence for the updated clinical practice guidelines by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Oncodermatology study group for prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis. The collection of papers elucidate the currently available evidence on acute radiation dermatitis, highlighting consolidated knowledge, effective treatments, and proposed areas for future clinical trials. Overall, a total of 51 randomized controlled trials were retrieved and included for quantitative analysis of an initial systematic review of literature from 1946 to January 2023. Discussion of the clinical impact of various therapeutic interventions include: antiperspirant and deodorant use, barrier films and dressings, natural and miscellaneous agents, photobiomodulation therapy, topical corticosteroids, topical non-steroidal agents, skin hygiene and washing, as well as StrataXRT and Mepitel film in breast cancer patients. The comprehensive nature of the meta-analyses and their related findings may help reduce the discrepancies in in treatment of acute radiation dermatitis and facilitate consistency of therapeutic interventions employed in clinical practice worldwide.

New Insights into Photobiomodulation of the Vaginal Microbiome-A Critical Review

The development of new technologies such as sequencing has greatly enhanced our understanding of the human microbiome. The interactions between the human microbiome and the development of several diseases have been the subject of recent research. In-depth knowledge about the vaginal microbiome (VMB) has shown that dysbiosis is closely related to the development of gynecologic and obstetric disorders. To date, the progress in treating or modulating the VMB has lagged far behind research efforts. Photobiomodulation (PBM) uses low levels of light, usually red or near-infrared, to treat a diversity of conditions. Several studies have demonstrated that PBM can control the microbiome and improve the activity of the immune system. In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the microbiome, mostly to the gut microbiome and its connections with many diseases, such as metabolic disorders, obesity, cardiovascular disorders, autoimmunity, and neurological disorders. The applicability of PBM therapeutics to treat gut dysbiosis has been studied, with promising results. The possible cellular and molecular effects of PBM on the vaginal microbiome constitute a theoretical and promising field that is starting to take its first steps. In this review, we will discuss the potential mechanisms and effects of photobiomodulation in the VMB.

StrataXRT for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the overall efficacy of StrataXRT, a topical gel dressing, in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on April 25, 2023 in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of StrataXRT in preventing acute RD in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant RT to the breast or chest wall with or without regional nodes were included. Pooled incidence odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, with analysis and forest plots generated in RevMan v5.4.

RESULTS

The analysis included three RCTs with a total of 189 patients assessed using per-protocol analysis. Two RCTs compared StrataXRT to standard of care, while the third compared it with Mepitel film and was reported separately. In the former RCTs, the odds ratio (OR) for developing acute grade 3 RD favored StrataXRT at 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P < 0.0001). The OR for developing acute grades 2-3 RD was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.03-3.18; P = 0.33). The RCT comparing StrataXRT with Mepitel film showed insignificant ORs for grade 3 and grades 2-3 RD. One RCT reported significantly lower erythema index (P = 0.008) and melanin index (P = 0.015) in StrataXRT patients. The use of StrataXRT did not raise additional safety concerns.

CONCLUSION

StrataXRT may help prevent severe acute RD in breast cancer RT patients. Further high quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Cicaderma® in radiation-related dermatitis of breast cancer: Results from the multicentric randomised phase III CICA-RT

Background and purpose

To prevent the occurrence of grade ≥ 2 radiodermatitis after post-operative breast irradiation in patients with non metastatic breast cancer.

Methods

This prospective randomised open-label multicenter study allocated patients from 3 French institutions, ≥18 years, requiring postoperative radiotherapy for histologically proven, early-stage (non-metastatic) unilateral breast adenocarcinoma or in situ breast cancer, with R0 or R1 post-operative status, to receive hygiene rules, associated with either Cicaderma® (Arm A), or preventive treatment according to the investigator preference (mainly hyaluronic acid (ialuset®), essential oils, or water spray, or no medication (Arm B). The primary outcome was to compare the efficacy of Cicaderma® versus local standard management in preventing the occurrence of grade ≥ 2 radiodermatitis. Main secondary objectives include Cicaderma® impact on radiotherapy discontinuation and on skin toxicity (pruritus), pain, quality of life, satisfaction.

Results

The CICA-RT study enrolled from June 2020 to April 2021, 258 women with a median age of 61 (22-91) years in 3 institutions. Patients received either Cicaderma® (A: N = 130) or standard practice (B: N = 128). In the 123 patients who initiated radiotherapy in each arm, 95 (77%, 95%CI 68.8%-84.3%) patients did not develop grade ≥ 2 dermatitis. Sensitivity and per-protocol analyses confirmed the absence of differences between arms.

Conclusion

This prospective study did not meet its primary endpoint of superiority of Cicaderma® over routine practice skin care in terms of prevention of acute radioinduced dermatitis of grade 2 or higher. However, Cicaderma® showed a significant decrease in the occurrence of pruritus with less patients reporting at least once grade ≥ 2 pruritus (A: N = 38, 31%; B: N = 58, 47%; p = 0.009).ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04300829.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on interventions for radiation dermatitis prevention and management: an overview of the methods

Over several decades, research on the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) has continued to emerge, yet there remains no "gold standard" treatment for RD care. Recent guidelines on RD prevention and management were published in 2022 by the Oncodermatology Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). As part of this guideline process, a collaborative effort was undertaken by international RD experts to quantitatively compare commonly studied RD skin interventions through meta-analyses and discern superiority of interventional treatments over another intervention, standard-of-care, or placebo in RD prevention and management. This paper summarizes the materials and methodology used in a set of meta-analysis studies that supplement the 2022 MASCC Clinical Practice Guidelines on RD Prevention and Management.