Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties

Acute skin toxicity and self-management ability among Chinese breast cancer radiotherapy patients: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Radiation dermatitis is the most common reaction to radiotherapy, almost all breast cancer patients receive radiotherapy on an outpatient basis. Currently, there are no studies on the experience of radiation dermatitis and the ability to self-manage it. Therefore, we aimed to use qualitative approaches to gain a deeper understanding of the actual experiences and self-management ability in order to provide a reference for further improving the effectiveness of self-management and to optimize symptom management strategies.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study was conducted using purposive sampling to select 17 breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from September to November 2023. The Colaizzi seven-step analysis method was used to classify the data into summarized themes.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified from the interview responses: (1) multiple self-reported skin symptoms in breast cancer patients with radiation dermatitis; (2) the multidimensional impact on patient's quality of life, especially pruritus, ulceration; (3) the ability to self-manage radiation dermatitis: strong mental toughness, positive response, and self-doubt; (4) challenges faced: concerns about radiotherapy side effects and recurrence, targeted symptom management and continuity of care after the radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals should consider patients' self-reported symptoms when assessing radiation dermatitis. For pruritus and pain, we can enhance precision symptom management to improve patients' quality of life. By utilizing information technology tools, we can increase breast cancer patients' ability and confidence in managing radiation dermatitis effectively while enhancing accurate symptom management during radiotherapy.

Understanding therapeutic radiographers' confidence in assessing, managing & teaching radiation induced skin reactions (RISR): A national survey in the UK

INTRODUCTION

The standard toxicity tools adopted for assessing Radiation Induced Skin Reactions (RISR) do not currently reflect how skin changes occur across all skin tones. A one size fits all approach is adopted currently for RISR assessment. The aim of this study was to understand what evidence-based practice and RISR tools are being used across the therapeutic radiography workforce and the levels of confidence in using these tools.

METHODS

A survey using Likert scales to assess confidence in RISR assessment and management was made available to 77 departments in the UK between August-November 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to understand respondents' confidence in assessing, managing, and teaching RISR between white, brown, and black skin tones; Fisher's exact test was used to assess the significance of differences between groups.

RESULTS

Complete responses were received from 406 therapeutic radiographers. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) was the most used RISR assessment tool (58% of respondents n = 237). Most respondents (74.2% n = 303) reported use of locally produced patient information on skin care, rather than the Society and College of Radiographers evidence-based patient leaflets. Confidence in assessing and managing RISR in white skin was higher than that in brown and black skin. Similarly, confidence was higher in teaching of appropriate RISR assessment and management in white skin tones when compared to brown and black skin.

CONCLUSION

White skin tones appear to be more confidently assessed and managed for RISR along with taught appropriate assessment and management, than brown and black skin tones in the sample of the workforce that responded.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A greater understanding of the reasons for these differences is required but this study aims to instigate change and positive growth within this area.

Instruments and scales for the evaluation of acute radiation dermatitis: A systematic review

Various assessment instruments have been proposed to document and evaluate radiation dermatitis. In this systematic review, we identified nineteen instruments or scales for the evaluation of radiation dermatitis and performed a critical review of the signs and symptoms included in each of them. Of those scales, only two have been validated. There is a need to revise the currently used instruments so to improve their capability to measure all relevant aspects of radiation dermatitis and their severity. In addition, it would be important to add the patients' view of their conditions and how they affect their lives. Finally, in order to be useful in clinical and research settings, instruments for evaluation of radiation dermatitis should be submitted to the validation process that is currently prescribed in the field of outcome measures development.

Barrier films for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common side effect of adjuvant whole-breast or chest wall irradiation, majorly impacting quality of life in numerous patients. The use of barrier films (polyurethane dressings such as Hydrofilm® and Mepitel® film remaining on the skin for the duration of the radiation treatment) has been investigated as a prophylactic measure in several prospective trials. Here, we critically appraise the available evidence behind preventive barrier film application in the context of breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

International literature was reviewed and high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The results of 5 RCTs (663 patients; >90% Caucasian) were analysed. Overall, barrier films lead to improved clinician- and patient-reported outcomes: fewer grade ≥2 RD (11% vs. 42%; OR = 0.16; p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (2% vs. 16%; OR = 0.12; p = 0.006), as well as less patient-reported pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0.51; p < 0.001), itching (SMD -0.52; p = 0.001), burning (SMD -0.41; p = 0.011), and limitations in daily activities (SMD -0.20; p = 0.007). Furthermore, barrier films have a high acceptance rate among patients, as well as a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Possible side effects due to its application are mild and mostly self-limiting. Overall, there was a lack of information on the radiation treatment techniques used.

CONCLUSION

The evidence presented in this meta-analysis suggests that barrier films are an excellent tool in the prevention of RD among Caucasian patients receiving whole-breast or chest wall irradiation. Its use should therefore be considered routinely in these patients.

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.

Ultrasound-Based Grading System for Radiation-Induced Acute Breast Toxicity

OBJECTIVES

To introduce an ultrasound-based scoring system for radiation-induced breast toxicity and test its reliability.

METHODS

Breast ultrasound (BUS) was performed on 32 patients receiving breast radiotherapy (RT) to assess the radiation-induced acute toxicity. For each patient, both the untreated and irradiated breasts were scanned at five locations: 12:00, 3:00, 6:00, 9:00, and tumor bed to evaluate for heterogenous responses to radiation within the entire breast. In total, 314 images were analyzed. Based on ultrasound findings such as skin thickening, dermis boundary irregularity, and subcutaneous edema, a 4-level, Likert-like grading scheme is proposed: none (G0), mild (G1), moderate (G2), and severe (G3) toxicity. Two ultrasound experts graded the severity of breast toxicity independently and reported the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the grading system. Imaging findings were compared with standard clinical toxicity assessments using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).

RESULTS

The inter-observer Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90, P < .001). For intra-observer repeatability, the PCC of the repeated scores was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87, P < .001). Imaging findings were compared with standard clinical toxicity assessments using CTCAE scales. The PCC between BUS scores and CTCAE results was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.35-0.80, P < .001). Among all locations, 6:00 and tumor bed showed significantly greater toxicity compared with 12:00 (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

BUS can investigate the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissue changes after RT. This BUS-based grading system can complement subjective clinical assessments of radiation-induced breast toxicity with cutaneous and subcutaneous sonographic information.

Non-Invasive Physical Plasma for Preventing Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer: A First-In-Human Feasibility Study

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common acute side effect of breast irradiation. More than a century following the therapeutic utilisation of X-rays, potent preventative and therapeutic options are still lacking. Non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP) is an emerging approach towards treatment of various dermatological disorders. In this study, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of a NIPP device on RD. Thirty patients undergoing hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation were included. Parallel to radiation treatment, the irradiated breast was treated with NIPP with different application regimens. RD was assessed during and after NIPP/radiation, using clinician- and patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, safety and feasibility features were recorded. None of the patients was prescribed topical corticosteroids and none considered the treatment to be unpleasant. RD was less frequent and milder in comparison with standard skin care. Neither NIPP-related adverse events nor side effects were reported. This proven safety and feasibility profile of a topical NIPP device in the prevention and treatment of RD will be used as the framework for a larger intrapatient-randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, using objective and patient-reported outcome measures as an endpoint.

Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Moist Desquamation among Breast Radiotherapy Patients

There has been an increasing interest in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in both the clinical and research settings to improve the quality of life among patients and to identify when clinical intervention may be needed. The primary purpose of this prospective study was to validate an acute breast skin toxicity PRO measure across a broad sample of patient body types undergoing radiation therapy. Between August 2018 and September 2019, 134 women undergoing adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) consented to completing serial PRO measures both during and post-RT treatment and to having their skin assessed by trained trial radiation therapists. There was high patient compliance, with 124 patients (92.5%) returning to the clinic post-RT for at least one staff skin assessment. Rates of moist desquamation (MD) in the infra-mammary fold (IMF) by PRO were compared with skin assessments completed by trial radiation therapists. There was high sensitivity (86.5%) and good specificity (79.4%) between PRO and staff-reported presence of MD in the IMF, and there was a moderate correlation between the peak severity of the MD reported by PRO and assessed by staff (rho = 0.61, p < 0.001). This prospective study validates a new PRO measure to monitor the presence of MD in the IMF among women receiving breast RT.

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines on radiation dermatitis: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a common side effect of radiation therapy (RT). While many different treatment strategies are currently used to address RD, there is a lack of consensus and RD prophylaxis and management guidelines have remained largely unchanged over the last 10 years. This review aims to formulate unambiguous supportive care interventions by comparing RD clinical practice guidelines published between 2010 and 2021 by several organizations: Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR), and International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care (ISNCC).

METHODS

Areas of agreement and discordance were assessed among the MASCC, BCCA, CCMB, ONS, SCoR, and ISNCC guidelines.

RESULTS

Treatment recommendations across guidelines for acute RD and chronic RT-induced skin toxicities have been summarized. The strongest agreement among the guidelines exists for the use of topical corticosteroids, silver sulfadiazine, washing, and deodorant. All guidelines recommend the use of topical corticosteroids, and washing with water and soap is consistently supported. There is minimal consensus on an optimal dressing or barrier film for RD prophylaxis or management. MASCC weakly recommends prophylactic use of silver sulfadiazine to reduce RD, while BCCA, CCMB, and SCoR recommend its use upon signs of infection. MASCC and CCMB recommend the use of a long-pulsed dye laser to manage telangiectasia, a late effect of RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the extent of discordance among guideline recommendations, further research is recommended to establish optimal treatments for RD prophylaxis and management.

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines on radiation dermatitis: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a common side effect of radiation therapy (RT). While many different treatment strategies are currently used to address RD, there is a lack of consensus and RD prophylaxis and management guidelines have remained largely unchanged over the last 10 years. This review aims to formulate unambiguous supportive care interventions by comparing RD clinical practice guidelines published between 2010 and 2021 by several organizations: Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR), and International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care (ISNCC).

METHODS

Areas of agreement and discordance were assessed among the MASCC, BCCA, CCMB, ONS, SCoR, and ISNCC guidelines.

RESULTS

Treatment recommendations across guidelines for acute RD and chronic RT-induced skin toxicities have been summarized. The strongest agreement among the guidelines exists for the use of topical corticosteroids, silver sulfadiazine, washing, and deodorant. All guidelines recommend the use of topical corticosteroids, and washing with water and soap is consistently supported. There is minimal consensus on an optimal dressing or barrier film for RD prophylaxis or management. MASCC weakly recommends prophylactic use of silver sulfadiazine to reduce RD, while BCCA, CCMB, and SCoR recommend its use upon signs of infection. MASCC and CCMB recommend the use of a long-pulsed dye laser to manage telangiectasia, a late effect of RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the extent of discordance among guideline recommendations, further research is recommended to establish optimal treatments for RD prophylaxis and management.

How do patient-reported outcomes compare with clinician assessments? A prospective study of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Breast cancer patients frequently develop radiation dermatitis (RD) when undergoing post-operative radiation therapy (RT). Traditional RD assessment methods measure clinician-reported outcomes (CROs), but patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gained recent popularity. The purpose of this prospective analysis was to compare PROs with CROs of breast RD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Demographic and treatment characteristics were prospectively collected for patients receiving post-operative RT between February 2018 to September 2020. Patients and clinicians completed a skin symptom assessment at baseline, weekly during RT, and at a one- to three-month follow-up visit. Skin treatments used by patients were collected. Concordance between each PRO and CRO was determined using percent concordance and concordance index (C-statistic) by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 777 patients were included in the present study. All skin symptom assessment items were significantly underreported by clinicians in comparison to patients (p < 0.0001), with a low to moderate level of concordance (C-statistic range: 0.58-0.70; percent concordance range: 29-50%). The majority of patients used moisturizing creams as a prophylactic measure (65.1%), as per institutional guidelines.

CONCLUSION

There were significant discrepancies between PROs and CROs when assessing breast RD. CROs alone are insufficient in measuring RD as they fail to capture the impact on patient quality of life. The study findings highlight the need for improved RD symptom assessment and support the development of a new tool with both patient and clinician components.