-
European Journal of Dermatology : EJD Oct 2016Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small... (Review)
Review
Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small cell lung, prostate, gastric, head and neck, and ovarian cancers, as well as in the adjuvant setting for operable node-positive breast cancers. Although the true incidence of dermatological adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving taxanes is not known, and has never been prospectively analysed, they clearly represent one of the major AEs associated with these agents. With an increase in the occurrence of cutaneous AEs during treatment with novel targeted and immunological therapies when used in combination with taxanes, a thorough understanding of reactions attributable to this class is imperative. Moreover, identification and management of dermatological AEs is critical for maintaining the quality of life in cancer patients and for minimizing dose modifications of their antineoplastic regimen. This analysis represents a systematic review of the dermatological conditions reported with the use of these drugs, complemented by experience at comprehensive cancer centres. The conditions reported herein include skin, hair, and nail toxicities. Lastly, we describe the dermatological data available for the new, recently FDA-and EMA- approved, solvent-free nab-paclitaxel.
Topics: Alopecia; Antineoplastic Agents; Docetaxel; Drug Eruptions; Edema; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous; Nail Diseases; Paclitaxel; Pigmentation Disorders; Radiodermatitis; Taxoids
PubMed: 27550571
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2016.2833 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of...
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the area of supportive care in cancer and/or PBM clinical application and dosimetry. This article is informational in nature. As with all clinical materials, this paper should be used with a clear understanding that continued research and practice could result in new insights and recommendations. The review reflects the collective opinion and, as such, does not necessarily represent the opinion of any individual author. In no event shall the authors be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the proposed protocols.
OBJECTIVE
This position paper reviews the potential prophylactic and therapeutic effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on side effects of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable body of evidence supporting the efficacy of PBM for preventing oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), CT, or HSCT. This could enhance patients' quality of life, adherence to the prescribed cancer therapy, and treatment outcomes while reducing the cost of cancer care.
METHODS
A literature review on PBM effectiveness and dosimetry considerations for managing certain complications of cancer therapy were conducted. A systematic review was conducted when numerous randomized controlled trials were available. Results were presented and discussed at an international consensus meeting at the World Association of photobiomoduLation Therapy (WALT) meeting in 2018 that included world expert oncologists, radiation oncologists, oral oncologists, and oral medicine professionals, physicists, engineers, and oncology researchers. The potential mechanism of action of PBM and evidence of PBM efficacy through reported outcomes for individual indications were assessed.
RESULTS
There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of PBM for preventing OM in certain cancer patient populations, as recently outlined by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). Building on these, the WALT group outlines evidence and prescribed PBM treatment parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for radiodermatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, trismus, mucosal and bone necrosis, lymphedema, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, oral and dermatologic chronic graft-versus-host disease, voice/speech alterations, peripheral neuropathy, and late fibrosis amongst cancer survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is robust evidence for using PBM to prevent and treat a broad range of complications in cancer care. Specific clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based expert consensus recommendations are provided. These recommendations are aimed at improving the clinical utilization of PBM therapy in supportive cancer care and promoting research in this field. It is anticipated these guidelines will be revised periodically.
PubMed: 36110957
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.927685 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Mar 2023Approximately 95% of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) experience radiation dermatitis (RD). Evidence has suggested that photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Approximately 95% of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) experience radiation dermatitis (RD). Evidence has suggested that photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) can stimulate skin renewal and minimize RD. The aim of the present paper was to investigate the efficacy of PBMT in RD prevention through a comprehensive literature review.
METHODS
A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted from 1980 to March 2021 to identify RCT on the use of PBMT for RD prevention. Forest plots were developed using RevMan software to quantitatively compare data between studies.
RESULTS
Five papers were identified: four in breast and one in head and neck cancer patients. Patients receiving PBMT experienced less severe RD than the control groups after 40 Gray (Gy) of RT (grade 3 toxicity: Odds Ratio (OR): 0.57, 95% CI 0.14-2.22, p = 0.42) and at the end of RT (grade 0 + 1 vs. 2 + 3 toxicity: OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.53, p < 0.0001). RT interruptions due to RD severity were more frequent in the control group (OR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.10-6.58, p = 0.85).
CONCLUSION
Preventive PBMT may be protective against the development of severe grades of RD and reduce the frequency of RT interruptions. Larger sample sizes and other cancer sites at-risk of RD should be evaluated in future studies to confirm the true efficacy of PBMT, also in preventing the onset of RD and to finalize a standardized protocol to optimize the technique. At present, starting PBMT when RT starts is recommendable, as well as performing 2 to 3 laser sessions weekly.
Topics: Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Radiodermatitis; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Skin; Breast
PubMed: 36952036
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07673-y -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Apr 2020Radiation dermatitis is a common adverse effect of radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients. Although radiation dermatitis is reported by either the clinician or the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Radiation dermatitis is a common adverse effect of radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients. Although radiation dermatitis is reported by either the clinician or the patient, previous studies have shown disagreement between clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review evaluated the extent of discordance between CROs and PROs for radiation dermatitis. Studies reporting both clinician and patient-reported outcomes for external beam RT were eligible. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, while 8 of these studies were eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis of acute and late skin toxicities. We found an overall agreement between CROs and PROs of acute skin colour change, fibrosis and/or retraction, and moist desquamation (p > 0.005). Reporting of late breast pain, breast edema, skin colour change, telangiectasia, fibrosis and/or retraction and induration/fibrosis alone (p > 0.005) were also in agreement between clinicians and patients. Our meta-analysis revealed a greater reporting of acute breast pain by patients (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.87-0.92, p < 0.001), greater reporting of acute breast edema by physicians (RR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.65-1.97, p < 0.001) and a greater reporting of late breast shrinkage by patients (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005). However, our review was limited by the discrepancies between PRO and CRO measurement tools as well as the absence of standard time points for evaluation of radiation dermatitis. Given potential discrepancies between CROs and PROs, both measures should be reported in future studies. Ultimately, we advocate for the development of a single tool to assess symptoms from both perspectives.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Edema; Fibrosis; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Physicians; Radiodermatitis
PubMed: 31563429
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.09.009 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... Mar 2023Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a common side effect of radiotherapy in most breast cancer patients. Curcumin has recently attracted more attention for managing the side... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a common side effect of radiotherapy in most breast cancer patients. Curcumin has recently attracted more attention for managing the side effects of breast cancer treatments. This review study aimed to investigate the effect of curcumin on the severity of radiation dermatitis in patients with breast cancer. Methods: All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected by searching PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The effect size was expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Study heterogeneity was assessed through Q statistics and I-squared.
RESULTS
Four RCTs with 882 patients were included in the final analysis. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that curcumin supplementation significantly reduced radiation dermatitis severity (RDS) score in the intervention group compared to the control group (WMD=-0.50; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.27, P <0.001). A significant heterogeneity was observed between the studies (I2 = 95.7%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the present study, curcumin has significant effects in reducing the severity of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Further well-designed longitudinal studies are recommended to confirm these results and to discover the underlying mechanisms of the effects of curcumin on the severity of radiation dermatitis in patients with cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Curcumin; Dietary Supplements; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Radiodermatitis; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 36974529
DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.3.783 -
Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem 2018to evaluate the effects of trolamine in the prevention or treatment of radiation dermatitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
to evaluate the effects of trolamine in the prevention or treatment of radiation dermatitis.
METHOD
systematic review and meta-analysis. Detailed individual search strategies for Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were developed in January 2016. A manual search was also performed to find additional references. A grey literature search was executed by using Google Scholar. Two researchers independently read the titles and abstracts from every cross-reference. The risk of bias of the included studies was analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The quality of evidence and grading of strength of recommendations was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
seven controlled clinical trials were identified. The controls used were calendula, placebo, institutional preference / usual care, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™, and Lipiderm™. The studies were pooled using frequency of events and risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, in subgroups according to radiation dermatitis graduation.
CONCLUSION
based on the studies included in this review, trolamine cannot be considered as a standardized product to prevent or treat radiation dermatitis in patients with breast and head and neck cancer.
Topics: Acute Disease; Ethanolamines; Humans; Radiodermatitis
PubMed: 29742271
DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.2035.2929 -
Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie : Organ... Jul 2023We present a case of mild radiation recall dermatitis triggered by cisplatin chemotherapy given simultaneously to re-irradiation. The dermatitis area correlated to skin...
We present a case of mild radiation recall dermatitis triggered by cisplatin chemotherapy given simultaneously to re-irradiation. The dermatitis area correlated to skin exposure of the previous radiation therapy, characterizing the reaction clearly as a recall. Cisplatin has not yet been recognized as a potential trigger for recall reactions. Although it was part of several reported multidrug trigger combinations, all review works referred to cisplatin as not suspicious, suggesting the combination partner as the effector. We performed a focused systematic literature review aiming to re-evaluate the real role of cisplatin as a (co-)triggering factor. In total, 30 reported cases were found, 90% triggered by multidrug combinations. The latter tended to cause more severe symptoms. Besides findings supporting the 20 Gy-threshold theory, no correlation between radiation dose and severity or prevalence was found. Recognition of cisplatin as a trigger of the recall phenomenon and its supportive management may prevent unnecessary cessation of systemic chemotherapy. Systematic reporting of recall events as a secondary endpoint of prospective clinical trials applying radiation therapy could support understanding the recall phenomenon.
Topics: Humans; Cisplatin; Prospective Studies; Radiodermatitis
PubMed: 36920507
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02059-9 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Oct 2023Radiation 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Radiodermatitis; Skin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37473629
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.07.001 -
Radiography (London, England : 1995) Feb 2022Radiation induced skin reactions (RISR) are a common adverse effect of radiotherapy that can impact on patient quality of life. The aim of this systematic review was to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Radiation induced skin reactions (RISR) are a common adverse effect of radiotherapy that can impact on patient quality of life. The aim of this systematic review was to identify new research evidence on interventions for RISR to guide health practitioners on best practice skin care for people receiving radiotherapy.
METHODS
A narrative systematic review was adopted including published research since 2014. The MESH search terms used in the 2014 College of Radiographers skin care systematic review were supplemented with terms identified through a pearl growing search technique.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were identified and reviewed, 13(39.4%) were assessed as having a high risk of bias 6(18.2%) moderate risk of bias, and 13(39.4%) low risk of bias; one pilot study was not assessed. Twenty-one of the studies were randomised controlled trials, 2 feasibility studies, 9 non-randomised trials, and 1 a pilot study.
CONCLUSION
Evidence from well conducted studies identified prophylactic use of steroid cream for patients, at high risk of RISR, as being the most efficacious in reducing acute skin reactions. Further research is needed on photo biomodulation therapy, studied within standard dose fractionation schedules, before it is recommended for use in practice. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of barrier films or any topical emollients currently in practice to reduce RISRs. Despite the number of new studies in this area there is limited good comparative research of RISR that accounts for predictive risk and new radiotherapy techniques.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Practitioners are encouraged to risk assess patients prior to radiotherapy to guide interventions and record and monitor patient skin toxicity regularly during treatment, comparing toxicity changes with scores recorded at baseline and support patient self-monitoring of skin reactions.
Topics: Humans; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Pilot Projects; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Radiodermatitis; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34649789
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.09.006 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2023Radiation dermatitis is a common complication of radiation therapy in breast cancer patients. Severe dermatitis may alter treatment schedules and clinical outcomes. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIM
Radiation dermatitis is a common complication of radiation therapy in breast cancer patients. Severe dermatitis may alter treatment schedules and clinical outcomes. The topical prevention strategy is the widely used option to prevent radiation dermatitis. However, the comparison between the current topical prevention strategies is insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the topical prevention efficacy of radiation dermatitis in patients with breast cancer through a network meta-analysis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This study followed The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects model was used to compare different treatments. The treatment modality ranking was evaluated using the P-score. I2 and Cochran's Q test were used to evaluate the heterogeneity among studies.
RESULTS
Forty-five studies were analyzed in this systematic review. A total of 19 studies were finally included in this meta-analysis for grade 3 or higher radiation dermatitis, which included 18 treatment arms and 2,288 patients. The forest plot showed that none of the identified regimens were superior to standard care.
CONCLUSION
A more effective regimen than standard care for the prevention of grade 3 or higher radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients was not identified. Our network meta-analysis showed that current topical prevention strategies are similarly efficacious. However, since preventing severe radiation dermatitis is an important clinical challenge, further trials should be conducted to address this issue.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Radiodermatitis
PubMed: 37103113
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13216