Concise review of non-invasive physical plasma as a promising treatment option for radiation injuries of the skin

Radiation injury has a complex pathophysiology and can result in long-term impediment of the dermal barrier function. Historically, its treatment has been no different to that of thermal burns and it is not always possible to prevent an unpredictable and uncontrolled extension of the radiation-induced reactions. Non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP), a highly energised gas encompassing a combination of various reactive species, positively affects the key players involved in wound healing and proves to be a promising treatment option for chronic wounds and inflammatory skin disorders. Recent clinical evidence also suggests preliminary efficacy in radiation injury following therapeutic irradiation as a part of cancer therapy. Further research is warranted to also investigate the clinical value of NIPP in the context of unplanned or accidental radiation exposure, either as a topical treatment or possibly as an intraoperative procedure, to potentially improve the dermatological outcome and reduce symptoms in radiation victims.

Review of the Terminology Describing Ionizing Radiation-Induced Skin Injury: A Case for Standardization

Ionizing radiation causes injury to the skin that produces a complex clinical presentation that is managed by various paradigms without clear standards. The situation is further complicated by the fact that clinicians and researchers often use different terms and billing codes to describe the spectrum of cutaneous injury. There is, however, general agreement between the two most commonly-used diagnostic scales, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and in their use to describe skin injury following radiation therapy. These scales are typically used by radiation oncologists to quantify radiation dermatitis, a component of the radiation-related disorders of the skin and subcutaneous tissue family of diagnoses. In rare cases, patients with severe injury may require treatment by wound care or burn specialists, in which case the disease is described as a “radiation burn” and coded as a burn or corrosion. Further compounding the issue, most US government agencies use the term Cutaneous Radiation Injury to indicate skin damage resulting from large, whole-body exposures. In contrast, the US Food and Drug Administration approves products for radiation dermatitis or “burns caused by radiation oncology procedures.” A review of the literature and comparison of clinical presentations shows that each of these terms represents a similar injury, and can be used interchangeably. Herein we provide a comparative review of the commonly used terminology for radiation-induced skin injury. Further, we recommend standardization across clinicians, providers, and researchers involved in the diagnosis, care, and investigation of radiation-induced skin injury. This will facilitate collaboration and broader inclusion criteria for grant-research and clinical trials and will assist in assessing therapeutic options particularly relevant to patient skin pigmentation response differences.

Use of paracrine factors from stem cells to treat local radiation burns in rats

Background

Mesenchymal stem cells based paracrine bioactive factors that deploy their task as an essential mechanism, but their efficiency for skin regeneration still requires clarification.

Methods

The mesenchymal stem cell-based paracrine factors were administered by subcutaneous injection of 0.5 mL peptides (general protein 8 mg/mL). These were performed after radiation on different days like the first, third, sixth, eighth, and 10th. To determine the consequences, we performed photography, planimetry, and preclinical test each week after 15 days of radiation. MSC-based peptides were injected into a rat that had radiation burns, and its observation encouraged cell-free therapeutic remedies to regenerate skin. Both control and experimental groups were exposed to 110 Gy of X-rays, which resulted in the formation of localized radiation burns on the skin (S=6 cm²) 15 days later. Thirty days after radiation, the wound stabilized (surface of the wound was S=2.2±0.2 cm²) and fluctuated throughout the course of the pathological process.

Results

The wounded area on the skin from the 15th to the 29th day after radiation was practically the same in both groups. The wounded area gradually reduced by 6.1±0.4 cm² (experimental group) and 5.9±0.6 cm² (control group) 15 days after radiation up to 2.2±0.3 cm² (in both control and experimental groups) on the 29th day after radiation. However, starting from the 36th day, there was a constant reduction in the burn area in the experimental group up to 0.2±0.1 cm² till the 71st day after radiation.

Conclusion

In the control group, the area of the lesion ranged from 1.4±0.6 cm² on the 50th day to 1.9±0.8 cm² on the 71st day. During the 57th to the 71st day, the difference between the affected area in the experimental and control groups was 1:8. The experimental group has a significantly higher level of skin regeneration and significant decrease in the level of leukocyte infiltration, thereby reducing necrosis.