Referral practices to dermatologists for the treatment of radiation dermatitis in the USA: a call for a multidisciplinary approach.

PURPOSE: Acute radiation dermatitis (RD) is a disfiguring and painful rash that occurs in up to 95% of patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) for cancer. Treatment for RD varies among practitioners with no evidence-based gold standard for management. While a multi-disciplinary approach has been utilized to manage other cancer-related toxicities, RD is most often managed by the treating radiation oncologist. METHODS: This study evaluated the referral practices of radiation oncologists to dermatologists for management of RD utilizing a survey of radiation oncologists across the USA. The goal was to identify the referral practices of radiation oncologists for RD and any barriers to a multidisciplinary approach. RESULTS: Of the 705 respondents, 15% reported ever referring patients to dermatology. Private practitioners referred significantly less than providers in academic or oncology centers (p < 0.01). Practitioners in urban settings were more likely to refer (p < 0.01), and radiation oncologists in the Southeastern USA were less likely to refer (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of timely access to dermatologists in various geographic areas in addition to radiation oncologists' preference to treat RD are barriers to multidisciplinary management of RD. Inclusion of dermatologists and wound care specialists in cancer treatment teams could improve patient care and stimulate needed research into strategies for treatment and prevention of RD.

Practice patterns for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute radiation dermatitis in the United States.

PURPOSE: Due to the inconclusive evidence for available treatment options, management of radiation dermatitis (RD) varies among practitioners. This study defines and reviews the current treatment patterns for RD in the USA, providing guidance for practicing physicians as well as directions for future research. METHODS: An online survey of 21 questions was emailed to all 5626 members of the 2013 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) directory, which included radiation oncologists, residents, fellows, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses and other care providers. The questions were designed to evaluate demographics of responders, their training and comfort in the management RD, and their patterns of care regarding prophylaxis and treatment of RD. Data was analyzed using simple summary and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Out of the 5626 emails sent, we were left with 709 physician respondents for our analysis, or a response rate of 12.9%. Although 84.7% of physicians felt that RD had a moderate or large impact on patients' quality of life during cancer treatment, only 30.1% received special training or specific instructional courses in treating RD during their medical training in residency or fellowship. Eighty-nine percent of surveyed physicians rely on observational and/or anecdotal findings to guide treatment decisions, and 51.4% reported using evidence-based treatments. CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that there is great variability in the topical agents and dressings used in practice by radiation oncologists to prevent and treat RD. This information may be useful to other practitioners to develop their own personal recommendations and can guide further research into strategies to prevent and treat radiation dermatitis.

Characterization of 17 chaperone-usher fimbriae encoded by Proteus mirabilis reveals strong conservation.

Proteus mirabilis is a Gram-negative enteric bacterium that causes complicated urinary tract infections, particularly in patients with indwelling catheters. Sequencing of clinical isolate P. mirabilis HI4320 revealed the presence of 17 predicted chaperone-usher fimbrial operons. We classified these fimbriae into three groups by their genetic relationship to other chaperone-usher fimbriae. Sixteen of these fimbriae are encoded by all seven currently sequenced P. mirabilis genomes. The predicted protein sequence of the major structural subunit for 14 of these fimbriae was highly conserved (≥ 95% identity), whereas three other structural subunits (Fim3A, UcaA and Fim6A) were variable. Further examination of 58 clinical isolates showed that 14 of the 17 predicted major structural subunit genes of the fimbriae were present in most strains (>85%). Transcription of the predicted major structural subunit genes for all 17 fimbriae was measured under different culture conditions designed to mimic conditions in the urinary tract. The majority of the fimbrial genes were induced during stationary phase, static culture or colony growth when compared to exponential-phase aerated culture. Major structural subunit proteins for six of these fimbriae were detected using MS of proteins sheared from the surface of broth-cultured P. mirabilis, demonstrating that this organism may produce multiple fimbriae within a single culture. The high degree of conservation of P. mirabilis fimbriae stands in contrast to uropathogenic Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica, which exhibit greater variability in their fimbrial repertoires. These findings suggest there may be evolutionary pressure for P. mirabilis to maintain a large fimbrial arsenal.