RESUMO
We report the first case of bullous pemphigoid complicating radiation therapy for vulvar cancer. Shortly after completion of postoperative radiation therapy for a TIN1 vulvar carcinoma, the patient presented with a rash that started within, but continued to extend, well beyond the radiation field. A biopsy of the lesions confirmed the diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid, and she had prompt clinical resolution with systemic tetracycline and steroids.
Assuntos
Penfigoide Bolhoso/diagnóstico , Doença Aguda , Idoso , Anti-Inflamatórios/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/radioterapia , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Feminino , Humanos , Penfigoide Bolhoso/tratamento farmacológico , Penfigoide Bolhoso/patologia , Radiodermite/diagnóstico , Esteroides , Tetraciclina/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Vulvares/radioterapiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: To identify logistic issues faced by radiation oncologists in initiating intracoronary radiation therapy (RT) and to delineate their role in these procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation oncologists from 12 sites (with combined experience of >500 cases) that participated in a randomized, double-blinded study of intracoronary RT completed a questionnaire that included demographics and experience, regulatory issues, scheduling and interaction with patients, time commitment, involvement of the radiation oncologist, and ideas for overcoming hurdles. RESULTS: Licensing was perceived as a substantial hurdle; Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval took more than 5 months at five of 12 sites. At two higher-volume sites, 10-20 procedures were performed per week; 75% of these radiation oncologists did not see the patient prior to the procedure and were not involved in obtaining informed consent. The mean time spent per case was 30-90 minutes; however, there were major concerns about case scheduling (<50% had any input in case scheduling) and after-hours coverage. Radiation oncologists performed fluoroscopy and cineangiography at most centers (92% and 83%); they also performed intracoronary contrast material injections (67%), interpreted intravascular ultrasonographic images (42%), and repositioned the intracoronary RT catheter (33%). CONCLUSION: The authors identify several issues that need to be addressed before intracoronary RT becomes a part of widespread clinical practice. Close collaboration between cardiologists and radiation oncologists at various levels is required to ensure that patients derive maximal benefit from this new technology.