Pharmaceutical management of acute radiation dermatitis in the German speaking radiation oncology community.

BACKGROUND: Radiation dermatitis (RD) remains the most common side effect in radiation therapy (RT) with various pharmaceutical options available for prevention and treatment. We sought to determine pharmaceutical management patterns of radiation dermatitis among radiation oncology professionals. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among the German-speaking community of radiation oncologists inquiring for their opinion on preventive and therapeutic pharmaceutical approaches for acute RD. RESULTS: 244 health professionals participated. Dexpanthenol lotion is the agent most widely used both for prevention (53.0%) and treatment (76.9%) of RD, followed by urea (29.8%) for prevention and corticosteroids (46.9%) for treatment. A wide range of substances is used by participants, though the overall experience with them is rather limited. 32.5% of participants do generally not recommend any preventative treatment. 53.4% of participants recommend alternative medicine for RD management. While seldomly used, corticosteroids were considered most effective in RD therapy, followed by dexpanthenol and low-level laser therapy. A majority of participants prefers moist over dry treatment of moist desquamation and 43.8% prescribe antiseptics. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical management of RD in the German-speaking radiation oncology community remains controversial, inconsistent, and partially not supported by evidence-based medicine. Stronger evidence level and interdisciplinary consensus is required amongst practitioners to improve these care patterns.

Safety and efficacy of helical tomotherapy following lung-sparing surgery in locally advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: To assess the value of radiation therapy (RT) with helical tomotherapy (HT) in the management of locally advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) receiving no or lung-sparing surgery. METHODS: Consecutive MPM cases not undergoing extrapleural pneumonectomy and receiving intensity-modulated (IM) HT were retrospectively evaluated for local control, distant control, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Impact of age, systemic treatment, RT dose, and recurrence patterns was analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. As a secondary endpoint, reported toxicity was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 34 localized MPM cases undergoing IMHT were identified, of which follow-up data were available for 31 patients. Grade 3 side effects were experienced by 26.7% of patients and there were no grade 4 or 5 events observed. Median PFS was 19 months. Median OS was 20 months and the rates for 1­ and 2­year OS were 86.2 and 41.4%, respectively. OS was significantly superior for patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: IMHT of locally advanced MPM after lung-sparing surgery is safe and feasible, resulting in satisfactory local control and survival. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improves OS. Randomized clinical trials incorporating modern RT techniques as a component of trimodal treatment are warranted to establish an evidence-based standard of care pattern for locally advanced MPM.

Intraoperative or postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases: time to systemic treatment onset and other patient-relevant outcomes.

PURPOSE: Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has become a viable treatment option for resectable brain metastases (BMs). As data on local control and radiation necrosis rates are maturing, we focus on meaningful secondary endpoints such as time to next treatment (TTNT), duration of postoperative corticosteroid treatment, and in-hospital time. METHODS: Patients prospectively recruited within an IORT study registry between November 2020 and June 2023 were compared with consecutive patients receiving adjuvant stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) of the resection cavity within the same time frame. TTNT was defined as the number of days between BM resection and start of the next extracranial oncological therapy (systemic treatment, surgery, or radiotherapy) for each of the groups. RESULTS: Of 95 BM patients screened, IORT was feasible in 84 cases (88%) and ultimately performed in 64 (67%). The control collective consisted of 53 SRT patients. There were no relevant differences in clinical baseline features. Mean TTNT (range) was 36 (9 - 94) days for IORT patients versus 52 (11 - 126) days for SRT patients (p = 0.01). Mean duration of postoperative corticosteroid treatment was similar (8 days; p = 0.83), as was mean postoperative in-hospital time (11 versus 12 days; p = 0.97). Mean total in-hospital time for BM treatment (in- and out-patient days) was 11 days for IORT versus 19 days for SRT patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IORT for BMs results in faster completion of interdisciplinary treatment when compared to adjuvant SRT, without increasing corticosteroid intake or prolonging in-hospital times. A randomised phase III trial will determine the clinical effects of shorter TTNT.

Risk assessment, surveillance, and nonpharmaceutical prevention of acute radiation dermatitis: results of a multicentric survey among the German-speaking radiation oncology community.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) represents one of the most frequent side effects in radiotherapy (RT). Despite technical progress, mild and moderate RD still affects major subsets of patients and identification and management of patients with a high risk of severe RD is essential. We sought to characterize surveillance and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD in German-speaking hospitals and private centers. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among German-speaking radiation oncologists inquiring for their evaluation of risk factors, assessment methods, and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD. RESULTS: A total of 244 health professionals from public and private institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland participated in the survey. RT-dependent factors were deemed most relevant for RD onset followed by lifestyle factors, emphasizing the impact of treatment conceptualization and patient education. While a broad majority of 92.8% assess RD at least once during RT, 59.0% of participants report RD at least partially arbitrarily and 17.4% stated to classify RD severity solely arbitrarily. 83.7% of all participants were unaware of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consensus exists on some lifestyle recommendations like avoidance of sun exposure (98.7%), hot baths (95.1%), and mechanical irritation (91.8%) under RT, while deodorant use (63.4% not at all, 22.1% with restrictions) or application of skin lotion (15.1% disapproval) remain controversial and are not recommended by guidelines or evidence-based practices. CONCLUSION: Identification of patients at an increased risk of RD and subsequent implementation of adequate preventive measures remain relevant and challenging aspects of clinical routines. Consensus exists on several risk factors and nonpharmaceutical prevention recommendations, while RT-dependent risk factors, e.g., the fractionation scheme, or hygienic measures like deodorant use remain controversial. Surveillance is widely lacking methodology and objectivity. Intensifying outreach in the radiation oncology community is needed to improve practice patterns.