Surgical Excision of Keloids Followed by In-office Superficial Radiation Therapy: Prospective Study Examining Clinical Outcomes

Effectiveness of postoperative superficial radiotherapy following the keloid-cross-flap surgery for auricular keloid: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Retaining partial keloid skin to make cross flaps (keloid-cross-flap surgery) is a modification of the core excision. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of superficial radiotherapy versus compression therapy after keloid-cross-flap surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, auricular keloid patients were consecutively screened from January 2019 to December 2021. They underwent keloid-cross-flap surgery and then enter either the superficial radiotherapy or the compression treatment group. The primary outcome was the one-year keloid recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included: non-completion rate of adjuvant treatment; Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) scores and auricular aesthetics scores, evaluated by a four-point Likert scale (1 = poor to 4 = excellent) of non-recurring patients. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to eliminate potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

123 patients were included in the superficial radiotherapy group and 128 in the compression treatment group. Non-completion rate was significantly higher in the compression treatment group (17.97 %), while the loss rate was comparable between the two groups. Overall, 13 patients (13.54 %) relapsed in superficial radiotherapy group, while 22 patients (25.58 %) in compression group (p < 0.05). After PSM, 59 patients in each group were analyzed, and the recurrence rate was lower in the superficial radiotherapy group (13.56 %). Of relapse-free patients, no significant difference was found in PSAS scores, OSAS scores or aesthetic scores between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Keloid-cross-flap surgery could provide favorable morphologic repair of the auricular keloid, and postoperative superficial radiotherapy shows higher compliance and lower recurrence rate comparing to compression treatment.

Comparison of surgical excision followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and laser combined with steroids for the treatment of keloids: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the effect of surgical excision followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and laser combined with steroids on keloids. Relevant studies reporting the recurrence rate or incidence of adverse events (AEs) were retrieved from the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases through August 2023. The quality of noncomparative single-arm clinical trials was evaluated using the methodological index for nonrandomised studies (MINORS) Methodological items. This meta-analysis was conducted utilizing Stata 12.0 statistical software. 26 studies involving 989 patients were included in the analysis. The recurrence rate in the laser combined with steroids therapy group (12.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9%-18.5%) was lower than that of the surgical excision combined with radiotherapy group (13.5%, 95% CI: 6.6%-22.2%). For the incidence of AEs, relatively low incidence of atrophy (0.0%, 95% CI: 0.0%-1.2%), telangiectasia (3.2%, 95% CI: 0.4%-7.6%), erythema (2.3%, 95% CI: 0.0%-10.6%), infection (0.2%, 95% CI: 0.0%-1.6%) and high hyperpigmentation rate (8.3%, 95% CI: 4.2%-13.4%) were obtained in the surgical excision combined with radiotherapy group. Compared with surgical resection followed by radiotherapy, the combination of laser and steroids for keloids showed a lower hyperpigmentation rate (6.5%), as well as a higher incidence of atrophy (22.7%), telangiectasia (6.4%), erythema (3.3%) and infection (3.3%). Only a hypopigmentation rate of 2.9% was obtained in patients treated with surgical excision plus radiotherapy. Current evidence revealed that surgical excision followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and laser combined with steroids therapy were effective and safe treatments for keloids, with relatively low recurrence rate and complication rate. Comparative studies are needed to further compare the effects of these two combination therapies on keloids.

Keloid treatments: an evidence-based systematic review of recent advances

BACKGROUND

Keloids are pathologic scars that pose a significant functional and cosmetic burden. They are challenging to treat, despite the multitude of treatment modalities currently available.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct an evidence-based review of all prospective data regarding keloid treatments published between 2010 and 2020.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier), and Cochrane Library (Wiley) was performed in November of 2020. Search strategies with the keywords "keloid" and "treatment" were performed by a medical librarian. The search was limited to prospective studies that were peer-reviewed, reported on clinical outcomes of keloid therapies, and were published in the English language between January 1, 2010, and November 24, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 3462 unique citations were identified, of which 108 studies met inclusion criteria. Current literature supports silicone gel or sheeting with corticosteroid injections as first-line therapy for keloids. Adjuvant intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), bleomycin, or verapamil can be considered, although mixed results have been reported with each. Laser therapy can be used in combination with intralesional corticosteroids or topical steroids with occlusion to improve drug penetration. Excision of keloids with immediate post-excision radiation therapy is an effective option for recalcitrant lesions. Finally, silicone sheeting and pressure therapy have evidence for reducing keloid recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

This review was limited by heterogeneity of subject characteristics and study outcome measures, small sample sizes, and inconsistent study designs. Larger and more robust controlled studies are necessary to further understand the variety of existing and emerging keloid treatments, including corticosteroids, cryotherapy, intralesional injections, lasers, photodynamic therapy, excision and radiation, pressure dressings, and others.

Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: Advances in Treatment and Review of Established Therapies

Hypertrophic scars and keloids can have significant detrimental effects on patients both psychosocially and functionally. A careful identification of patient risk factors and a comprehensive management plan are necessary to optimize outcomes. Patients with a history of dystrophic scarring should avoid unnecessary procedures and enhance the wound-healing process using various preventive strategies. As there is no single, fully efficacious treatment modality, prevention remains the best approach in reducing aberrant scar formation. When prevention therapies fail, keloids have been shown to be respond to a variety of therapies including topical and injectable corticosteroids, 5-fluorouracil, radiotherapy, lasers, and surgical excision, all with varying efficacies. As such, management should be tailored to the individual patient's risk factors with the use of combination therapies to reduce recurrence rates. Still, keloid and hypertrophic scar therapies are widely diverse with novel treatment modalities providing alternatives for recurring lesions. Laser-assisted drug delivery, skin priming, and novel topical therapies may provide alternative options for the management of hypertrophic scars and keloids.

Current advances in the selection of adjuvant radiotherapy regimens for keloid

Keloid is a common benign skin tumor in the outpatient department, and patients are often accompanied by itching and pain. Since the pathogenesis is unknown, the effect of single method treatment is unsatisfactory, and therefore the recurrence rate is high. Therefore, comprehensive treatment is mostly used in clinical treatment. Adjuvant radiotherapy is currently one of the most effective treatments for keloid. After long-term clinical practice, brachytherapy and electron beam radiotherapy has increasingly become the gold standard of treatment, because brachytherapy provides more focused radiation treatment to focal tissue to significantly reduce recurrence rate, and better preserve normal tissue. With the development of new radiotherapy techniques, more options for the treatment of keloid. Currently, adjuvant radiotherapy has been widely recognized, but there is no consensus on the optimal protocol for adjuvant radiotherapy for keloids. This review provides a review of published treatment options and new radiotherapy techniques for adjuvant radiotherapy of keloids and gives a comprehensive evaluation for clinical treatment.

Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Keloids

Radiotherapy is one of the therapeutic methods for keloids, and the irradiation technique has innovated from superficial X-ray to brachytherapy after decades of clinical practice. At present, the application of adjuvant radiotherapy has been widely accepted by clinicians, while the consensus of optimal adjuvant radiotherapy strategies for keloids has not been reached. Factors such as radiation timing, dose, fractions, and lesion locations may be associated with the clinical outcomes of patients with keloids after radiotherapy while a comprehensive review is lacking. Herein, this review summarized the published literature of adjuvant radiotherapy for keloids involving mechanism, timing, dose, fractions, and complications, etc., which may facilitate clinical decision making.Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Treatment of Keloids Using Plasma Skin Regeneration Combined with Radiation Therapy Under the Evaluation of Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale

Purpose

Keloids are caused by uncontrolled excessive proliferation of fibrous tissue. Multiple treatment strategies including steroid injection, surgical excision, laser therapy and radiation therapy have been reported. Few studies have evaluated the performance of plasma skin regeneration (PSR) in the treatment of keloid. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of PSR combined with radiation therapy for keloids on different body parts.

Patients and Methods

A total of 71 patients with 98 keloids were enrolled in this study. Keloids <4 mm thick underwent single-dose PSR, while keloids ≥4 mm thick were administered compound betamethasone injection beforehand. Radiation therapy was administered after 24 hours and again 7 days later after PSR. The outcome was evaluated using the patient and observer scar assessment scale at 12 months post-treatment.

Results

Patient-reported average scores for all keloids significantly decreased from 35.05±9.94 to 21.84±7.04 (p < 0.05). Keloids on face and neck, chest, and back responded better than those on shoulders and limbs. The recurrence rate was observed to be 15.3% (15 out of 98). Adverse effects were mild.

Conclusion

PSR combined with radiation therapy is an effective and safe strategy to treat keloids. Location could be a factor that affects curative effects.

Outcomes of Surgical Excision and High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Earlobe Keloids

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy as an adjuvant therapy to surgical resection has shown variable rates of recurrence treating earlobe keloids. The purpose of this study was to describe our experience with surgical excision followed by high-dose-rate brachytherapy and present our outcomes after 24 months of follow-up.

METHODS

Retrospective chart of 14 patients with 14 earlobe keloids treated with surgical excision followed by high-dose-rate brachytherapy, between January 2015 and May 2016 were enrolled. Database included demographics, Fitzpatrick skin type, laterality, lesion size, and follow-up visits information. Outcomes were assessed in terms of keloid recurrence rates, complications, and patient subjective aesthetical result satisfaction after 24 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed without complications. Three patients experienced keloid recurrence after 6 (14.28%) and 12 months (7.14%). Three patients experienced mild signs of self-limited post-radiation dermatitis. Self-assessment of aesthetical result was considered "very good" in 71.43% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Surgical excision followed by high-dose-rate brachytherapy is secure and effective to treat earlobe keloids, and can be considered a first line combined treatment. Larger clinical trials comparing different irradiation protocols are still needed.

Prophylactic external beam radiation therapy for keloid prevention in thyroid surgery patients

BACKGROUND

Poor cosmesis, secondary to keloid or hypertrophic scar, following thyroid surgery may cause considerable patient distress and be a significant challenge to treat. In this case series we examined the efficacy of prophylactic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prevention of keloid formation in keloid-prone patients undergoing thyroid surgery. While much has been published about documenting the efficacy in reducing keloid formation following keloid excision, very little literature exists documenting prophylactic use related to surgeries with the goal of prevent de novo keloid formation.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated a series of ten patients, who underwent a prophylactic EBRT for keloid prevention after thyroid surgery between January 2013 and February 2019. Patient demographics, primary diagnosis, surgical procedure, EBRT dosage, and post-operative visit records were reviewed.

RESULTS

All ten patients who received EBRT for keloid prophylaxis following a thyroid surgery were female. Half of the patients were African Americans, 40% Caucasians, and 10% Hispanic. The mean age was 46.40±15.63 years with BMI of 31.5±5.5 kg/m2. Radiation was initiated within 6 hours of the surgery with an average radiation dose per session of 5.7±1.7 Gy. The total average EBRT dose delivered was 17.4±4.2 Gy. Mean follow-up period was 13 months post-thyroidectomy, with the longest follow-up at 23 months. One patient, who underwent a lateral neck dissection in addition to thyroid surgery, developed hypertrophic scar in less than 10% of her incision length. Nine other patients (90%) showed no post-surgical keloid nor hypertrophic scar formation and patients were satisfied with postsurgical cosmesis.

CONCLUSIONS

We examined the efficacy of prophylactic EBRT in keloid-prone patients undergoing thyroid surgery. Prophylactic EBRT following thyroid surgery is effective in achieving a satisfactory cosmetic outcome in patients at high risk for keloid formation.