Radiation recall dermatitis: A review of the literature.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Radiation recall dermatitis (RRD) is a skin reaction limited to an area of prior radiation triggered by the subsequent introduction of systemic therapy. To characterize RRD, we conducted a literature search, summarized RRD features, and compared the most common drug classes implicated in this phenomenon. MATERIALS/METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane DBSR databases were queried through July 1, 2019 using key words: radiation recall, RRD, and radiodermatitis (limited to humans and English language). Studies included case reports in which patients treated with radiotherapy were initiated on a new line of systemic therapy and subsequently developed a skin reaction in the irradiated area. RRD cases were organized by whether RRD occurred after a single drug or multiple drug administration. RESULTS: One-hundred fifteen studies representing 129 RRD cases (96 single-drug RRD, 33 multi-drug) were included. Sixty-three drugs were associated with RRD. Docetaxel (22) and gemcitabine (18) were the two drugs most commonly associated with RRD. Breast cancer (69 cases) was the most commonly associated tumor type. For single-drug RRD, the median radiotherapy dose was 45.0 Gy (range, 30.0-63.2 Gy). The median time from radiotherapy to drug exposure, time from drug exposure to RRD and time to significant improvement was 8 weeks (range, 2-132 weeks), 5 days (range, 2-56 days), and 14 days (range, 7-49 days), respectively. Variables significantly associated with grade ≥2 toxicity were docetaxel (P = 0.04) and non-antifolate antimetabolite (P = 0.05). The only variable significantly associated with grade ≥3 toxicity was capecitabine (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: RRD is a complex toxicity that can occur after a wide range of radiotherapy doses and many different systemic agents. Most commonly, it presents in patients diagnosed with breast cancer and after administration of a taxane or antimetabolite medication. RRD treatment generally consists of corticosteroids with consideration of antibiotics if superinfection is suspected. Drug re-challenge may be considered after RRD if the initial reaction was of mild intensity.

Patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events and quality-of-life linear analogue self-assessment in breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy: single-institution prospective registry.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the impact of patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) on overall quality-of-life (QOL) employing linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) in breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT). MATERIALS/METHODS: All patients treated with RT for BC with curative intent from 2015 to 2019 at our institution were included. Breast specific PRO-CTCAE and overall QOL LASA questionnaires were administered at baseline, end-of-treatment, 3, 6, 12 months, and then annually. Minimal clinically important difference in overall QOL was a 10-point change in LASA. Hypofractionation was any treatment > 2 Gy per fraction. Mixed models for repeated measures were used to determine the association of PRO-CTCAE and overall QOL LASA. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-one (331) patients with a median follow-up of 3.1 years (range 0.4-4.9) were included. Average overall QOL LASA scores were 78.5 at baseline, 79.8 at end-of-treatment, 79.8 at 3 months, 77.1 at 6 months, 79.4 at 12 months, and 79.7 at 24 months. On univariate analysis, patients reporting a grade ≥ 3 PRO-CTCAE had, on average, a 10.4-point reduction in overall LASA QOL (p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, not being treated with hypofractionation and higher BMI were predictive for worse overall LASA QOL with a 10-point reduction in LASA for patients reporting a grade ≥ 3 PRO-CTCAE (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients reporting a grade ≥ 3 PRO-CTCAE experienced statistically significant and clinically meaningful deterioration in overall QOL LASA. Hypofractionation improved QOL while higher BMI predicted for worse QOL. PRO-CTCAE should be integrated into future clinical trials.

A framework for automated contour quality assurance in radiation therapy including adaptive techniques.

Contouring of targets and normal tissues is one of the largest sources of variability in radiation therapy treatment plans. Contours thus require a time intensive and error-prone quality assurance (QA) evaluation, limitations which also impair the facilitation of adaptive radiotherapy (ART). Here, an automated system for contour QA is developed using historical data (the 'knowledge base'). A pilot study was performed with a knowledge base derived from 9 contours each from 29 head-and-neck treatment plans. Size, shape, relative position, and other clinically-relevant metrics and heuristically derived rules are determined. Metrics are extracted from input patient data and compared against rules determined from the knowledge base; a computer-learning component allows metrics to evolve with more input data, including patient specific data for ART. Nine additional plans containing 42 unique contouring errors were analyzed. 40/42 errors were detected as were 9 false positives. The results of this study imply knowledge-based contour QA could potentially enhance the safety and effectiveness of RT treatment plans as well as increase the efficiency of the treatment planning process, reducing labor and the cost of therapy for patients.