Utility of topical agents for radiation dermatitis and pain: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Although topical agents are often provided during radiation therapy, there is limited consensus and evidence for their use prophylactically to prevent or reduce radiation dermatitis. METHODS: This was a multi-site, randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded study of 191 breast cancer patients to compare the prophylactic effectiveness of three topical agents (Curcumin, HPR Plus™, and Placebo) for reducing radiation dermatitis and associated pain. Patients applied the topical agent to their skin in the radiation area site three times daily starting the first day of radiation therapy (RT) until 1 week after RT completion. RESULTS: Of the 191 randomized patients, 171 patients were included in the final analyses (87.5% white females, mean age = 58 (range = 36-88)). Mean radiation dermatitis severity (RDS) scores did not significantly differ between study arms (Curcumin = 2.68 [2.49, 2.86]; HPR Plus™ = 2.64 [2.45, 2.82]; Placebo = 2.63 [2.44, 2.83]; p = 0.929). Logistic regression analyses showed that increased breast field separation positively correlated with increased radiation dermatitis severity (p = 0.018). In patients with high breast field separation (≥ 25 cm), RDS scores (Curcumin = 2.70 [2.21, 3.19]; HPR Plus™ = 3.57 [3.16, 4.00]; Placebo = 2.95 [2.60, 3.30]; p = 0.024) and pain scores (Curcumin = 0.52 [- 0.28, 1.33]; HPR Plus™ = 0.55 [- 0.19, 1.30]; Placebo = 1.73 [0.97, 2.50]; p = 0.046) significantly differed at the end of RT. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no significant effects of the treatment groups on the overall population, our exploratory subgroup analysis suggests that prophylactic treatment with topical curcumin may be effective for minimizing skin reactions and pain for patients with high breast separation (≥ 25 cm) who may have the worst skin reactions.

ACR-ACNM-ASTRO-SNMMI Practice Parameter for the Performance of Therapy With Radium-223.

AIM/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: The goal of therapy with unsealed radiopharmaceutical sources is to provide either cure or significant prolongation of disease-specific survival, and effective reduction and/or prevention of adverse disease-related symptoms or untoward events while minimizing treatment-associated side effects and complications. Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an alpha particle-emitting isotope used for targeted bone therapy. This practice parameter is intended to guide appropriately trained and licensed physicians performing therapy with radium-223. Such therapy requires close cooperation and communication between the physicians who are responsible for the clinical management of the patient and those who administer radiopharmaceutical therapy and manage the attendant side effects. Adherence to this parameter should help to maximize the efficacious use of radium-223, maintain safe conditions, and ensure compliance with applicable regulations. METHODS: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described on the American College of Radiology (ACR) website ("The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards," www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI). All these societies contributed to the development of the practice parameter and approved the final document. RESULTS: This practice parameter addresses the many factors which contribute to appropriate, safe, and effective clinical use of radium-223. Topics addressed include qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, specifications of patient examination and treatment; documentation, radiation safety, quality control/improvement, infection control, and patient education. CONCLUSIONS: This practice parameter is intended as a tool to guide clinical use of radium-223 with the goal of facilitating safe and effective medical care based on current knowledge, available resources and patient needs. The sole purpose of this document is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective.

Successful treatment of an angiosarcoma of the nose with radiation therapy.

Angiosarcoma is a rare, aggressive malignancy of endothelial cells lining blood vessels. It poses therapeutic challenges since there is no standard established treatment. It is typically treated with resection and wide-field postoperative radiation therapy. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have also been reported as initial therapies. Regardless of the treatment rendered, the risk of local regional failure and distant relapse remains high for this disease. We present the case of a patient who developed a well-differentiated angiosarcoma of the nose with bilateral malar extension. No commonly associated risk factors such as lymphedema, prior radiotherapy or chronic venous ulceration were present. Given her age, pre-existing renal condition and preference not to receive chemotherapy, systemic therapy was not utilized. Surgery was also refused by the patient due to the projected cosmetic deficit. The patient was ultimately treated with definitive radiotherapy, utilizing electrons to the central face, differential thickness bolus, an intraoral stent, eye shields, an aquaplast mask for immobilization and a wax-coated lead shield over the face in order to limit penumbra of the radiation beam. Right and left anterior 6-MV photons were used to tangentially treat the bilateral malar region in order to extend the field edges. At the time of this report, the patient remains disease free at nearly 2.0 years after radiotherapy. To the best of our knowledge, this represents only the second case in the literature reporting radiotherapy as a single modality treatment that resulted in complete remission of an angiosarcoma of the face.

Squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: surgery, radiation therapy, or both.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oropharynx remains controversial. No randomized trial has addressed adequately the question of whether surgery (S), radiation therapy (RT), or combined treatment is most effective. METHODS: Treatment results from North American academic institutions that used S with or without adjuvant RT (S +/- RT) or used RT alone or followed by neck dissection (RT +/- ND) for patients with SCC of the tonsillar region or the base of tongue were compiled through a MEDLINE search (from 1970 to August, 2000) and from the references cited in each report. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they contained direct, actuarial (life-table), or Kaplan-Meier calculations for the following end points: local control, local-regional control, 5-year absolute survival, 5-year cause specific survival, or severe or fatal treatment complications. Weighted average results, which took into account series size, were calculated for each end point for the purposes of treatment comparison. Results and conclusions were based on data from 51 reported series, representing the treatment of approximately 6400 patients from the United States and Canada. RESULTS: The results for patients with SCC of the base of tongue who underwent S +/- RT versus RT +/- ND, respectively, were as follows: local control, 79% versus 76% (P = 0.087); local-regional control, 60% versus 69% (P = 0.009); 5-year survival, 49% versus 52% (P = 0.2); 5-year cause specific survival, 62% versus 63% (P = 0.4); severe complications, 32% versus 3.8% (P < 0.001); and fatal complications, 3.5% versus 0.4% (P < 0.001). The results for patients with SCC in the tonsillar region who underwent S +/- RT versus RT +/- ND, respectively, were as follows: local control, 70% versus 68% (P = 0.2); local-regional control, 65% versus 69% (P = 0.1); 5-year survival, 47% versus 43% (P = 0.2); 5-year cause specific survival, 57% versus 59% (P = 0.3); severe complications, 23% versus 6% (P < 0.001); and fatal complications, 3.2% versus 0.8% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The information in this article provides a useful benchmark for evidence-based counseling of patients with SCC of the oropharynx. The rates of local control, local-regional control, 5-year survival, and 5-year cause specific survival were similar for patients who underwent S +/- RT or RT +/- ND, whereas the rates of severe or fatal complications were significantly greater for the S +/- RT group. Furthermore, available data on the functional consequences of treatment suggest the superiority of RT +/- ND. The authors conclude that RT +/- ND is preferable for the majority of patients with SCC of the oropharynx.