Acute radiation dermatitis among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with proton beam therapy- prognostic factors and treatment outcomes

Abstract

Background

A high incidence of severe acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) has been reported for cancer patients treated by proton beam therapy (PBT). This prospective study investigated the prognostic factors and treatment outcomes of ARD among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with PBT.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients with newly diagnosed NPC and treated with PBT were enrolled. ARD was recorded weekly based on the criteria of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 in a prospective fashion at treatment visits (1st to 7th weeks) and 1 week (8th week) and 1 month (11th week) after the completion of PBT. Topical corticosteroid was used when grade 1 ARD appeared, and silver sulfadiazine was added if ARD progressed to grade 2 or more.

Results

The maximum ARD grade was 1, 2, and 3 in 26 (45.6%), 24 (42.1%), and 7 (12.3%) of the patients, respectively. The peak incidence of grade 2 and 3 ARD was observed during the period of the 6th to 8th weeks. Twenty-four (42.1%) patients received topical corticosteroid alone; 33 (57.9%) patients received the combination of topical corticosteroid and silver sulfadiazine. In the 11th week, most grade 2 and 3 ARD had disappeared and 93.0% of the patients had ARD of grade 1 or lower. In the binary logistic regression model, we identified habitual smoking [odds ratio (OR): 5.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3–18.8, P = 0.012] and N2 to N3 nodal status (OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 1.6–15.4, P = 0.006) as independent predictors of grade 2 and 3 ARD.

Conclusion

The results show ARD is a major concern for patients with NPC treated with PBT, especially those with habitual smoking or advanced nodal status. Topical corticosteroid and silver sulfadiazine are effective for treating ARD induced by PBT.

Introduction

Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) is a squamous epithelial carcinoma occurring in the mucosal wall of the nasopharynx. NPC is a geographically unique cancer, with a world incidence of 1.5×10^− 5 per year and more than 70% of new cases occurring in East and Southeast Asia [1]. Radiotherapy (RT) with or without the combination of chemotherapy is the major treatment for NPC. Different from X-rays, proton beams are a kind of particle radiation. The use of proton beam therapy (PBT) to treat cancer patients is rapidly increasing nationwide, as evidenced by the rapid growth in the number of operational proton centers [2].

A growing number of cancer centers in the world equipped with proton machine facility have chosen PBT to radically treat patients with NPC. Promising treatment outcomes of PBT with a reduction of swallowing-related functional outcomes and potential increase of patient survival have been reported compared with X-rays -based RT (XRT).[3–7] In radiation physics, PBT with its inherent properties of a Bragg peak, creating a sharp exit dose, has the benefit of dose distribution for cancer treatment. Protons have relatively low entrance (skin) doses when monoenergetic beams are used. However, tumor treatment volumes are complex targets with variable thicknesses and depths, requiring modulation of the beam energy to produce a spread-out Bragg peak that covers the target area. This process can result in a significant, and potentially full entrance dose with loss of the skin-sparing effect characteristic of high-energy X-rays (Fig. 1), which represents a disadvantage for the surface area of the skin and might cause a heightened probability of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) [8].

ARD can progress from erythema to dry desquamation to moist desquamation and even to necrosis. Severe ARD can lead to interruption of RT course, cause permanent skin changes, diminish aesthetic appeal, reduce quality of life, and potentially negatively influence cancer control [9–11]. Some studies have reported a high incidence of severe ARD for cancer patients treated with PBT [12–16]. In this prospective study, we investigated the treatment outcomes and prognostic factors of ARD for NPC patients treated with PBT at a single institute.

Methods

Patient population

The proton center of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan started to treat NPC patients using PBT in January 2019. Those with newly diagnosed NPC and curatively treated with PBT for the whole treatment course were recruited. Patients who had not completed the proposed treatment course, or with a protracted treatment course due to interruption were excluded. With the approval of the institutional review board, 57 patients were enrolled for data analysis in the study. The patient characteristics are outlined in Table 1. The median age at the time of diagnosis was 48 (range 31–71) years old. Forty-two (73.7%) patients were male and 19 (33.3%) had a smoking habit. The distribution of clinical stages based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition was 7.0% in stage I, 28.1% in stage II, 38.6% in stage III, and 26.3% in stage IVA, respectively. Fifty-two (91.2%) patients were treated in combination with chemotherapy.

Assessment of ARD: ARD was graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v. 4.0) reported weekly by physicians in a prospective fashion at treatment visits (1st to 7th weeks) and 1 week (8th week) and 1 month (11th week) after the completion of PBT. The grading is grade 1: faint erythema or dry desquamation; grade 2: moderate to brisk erythema, patchy moist desquamation, mostly confined to skin folds and creases, moderate edema; grade 3: moist desquamation in areas other than skin folds and creases, bleeding induced by minor trauma or abrasion; and grade 4: life-threatening consequences, skin necrosis or ulceration of full thickness dermis, spontaneous bleeding from involved site, skin graft indicated.

PBT technique

The detailed technique of PBT for patients with NPC in the institute was published previously [17]. The scanning beam technique was used and delivered by a Sumitomo Proton Machine and the treatment planning was carried out by the RayStation treatment planning system (version 7, Raysearch Medical Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Computed tomography (CT) imaging with 1.25mm per slice for treatment planning purposes was performed for all patients while supine with a customized thermoplastic mask for immobilization. Three different dose levels of clinical target volume (CTV) were created. The high dose level of CTV (CTV-H) was defined as the gross tumor and nodes with an isotropic extension of 3mm for the gross tumor and gross nodes (GTV) revealed in the image studies. The middle dose level of CTV (CTV-M) covered the neighboring risky anatomic structures (e.g. skull base, parapharyngeal space, upper neck lymphatics) of GTV, encompassing micro-metastasis routes of the disease. The low dose level of CTV (CTV-L) included the uninvolved subclinical lymphatics in the lower neck area. The prescribed dose and fractionation for CTV-H, CTV-M, and CTV-L was 69.96 Cobalt Gray Equivalent (CGE), 59.4 CGE, and 52.8–54.0 CGE in 33 fractions, respectively. The organs at risk (OARs) with specified dose constraints were contoured for treatment planning, including the brain, brainstem, spinal cord, optic nerve, chiasm, lens, cochleas, parotid glands, submandibular glands, constrictor muscle, mandible, oral cavity, larynx, upper esophagus, thyroid gland. The constrains of these OARs generally followed the guideline recommended.[18] As regards the neck skin, the OAR of skin 3 or 5mm (a layer structure of 3 or 5 mm inward from the head and neck contour) was optionally outlined and arbitrarily chosen as a constraint with the request of “as small as possible for V50CGE without compromising the coverage of CTV”. Typically, three beam directions of posterior, left anterior oblique and right anterior oblique fields with multi-field optimization were used for the planning, with the objective of covering 99.5% of the CTVs and minimizing dose to the OARs. Generally, robust optimization was used to take into consideration of the range (plus 3.5%) and positional uncertainties (plus 3mm). Robust evaluation, which creates 21 plans from the worst to best-case scenarios, was conducted for the assessment of the planning result. Daily CT based image guide was conducted for set-up accuracy. Adaptive plan was performed in case of remarkable changes of GTV or patients’ body shape to confirm at least 95% coverage of CTV.

Chemotherapy

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with the combination regimens of cisplatin (80 mg/m², day1) and gemcitabine (1 g/m², days 1 and 8) administered every 3 weeks was given for 3 cycles to those patients with clinical stages III–IV [19]. Concurrent chemotherapy with intravenous cisplatin 40 mg/m² weekly as a radiation sensitizer was given for 6–7 weeks during the course of PBT for those with clinical stages II–IV.

Statistical analysis

Pearson’s chi-squared test was used on the categorical variables between groups. Binary logistic regression was performed to identify prognostic factors of grade 2 and 3 ARD in multivariate analysis. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analysis was processed with IBM SPSS version 22 software.

Results

Incidence and severity of ARD

Figure 2 presents the incidence and severity of ARD assessed at the nine time points. During the first 3 weeks, no patients presented with notable ARD. The maximum ARD grade was 1, 2, and 3 in 26 (45.6%), 24 (42.1%), and 7 (12.3%) of the patients, respectively. No grade 4 ARD was observed. The peak incidence of grade 2 and 3 ARD occurred from the 6th to 8th weeks. In the 11th week, most grade 2 and 3 ARD had disappeared and 93.0% of the patients had ARD of grade 1 or lower. However, some degree of chronic scar formation was observed in 3 of the 7 cases with grade 3 ARD after longer follow-up. All of the three cases had a smoking habit and one had comorbidity of diabetes. Figure 3A-3C presents the typical pictures of ARD in a case of NPC patient, staged T1N3M0, who was treated with PBT in combination with weekly cisplatin. The grade 1 ARD appeared in the 4th week of PBT, progressing to grade 3 in the 7th week. In the 11th week, the severe ARD at the right lower neck skin fold area gradually healed but some scarring remained.

Treatment of ARD

Generally, topical corticosteroid was used when grade 1 ARD appeared, and silver sulfadiazine was added if ARD progressed to grade 2 or more. During the treatment course, 24 (42.1%) patients were treated with topical corticosteroid, and 33 (57.9%) patients received the combination of topical corticosteroid and silver sulfadiazine. Twenty-five patients (43.8%) needed an additional non-adhering silicone dressing (ADAPTIC™) for skin wound care.

Predictors of ARD: Table 2 presents the relationship between clinical variables and a maximum ARD of grade 2 and 3 in univariate and multivariate analysis. In the binary logistic regression model, we identified habitual smoking [odds ratio (OR): 5.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3–18.8, P = 0.012] and N2 to N3 nodal status (OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 1.6–15.4, P = 0.006) as independent predictors of grade 2 and 3 ARD. Age, gender, T status, body mass index, diabetes, and concurrent chemotherapy were not observed to impose a significant risk factor for ARD.

Discussion

ARD is often defined to occur within the first 90 days of RT, typically starting to occur after a moderately high dose (e.g., 35–40 Gy in 2 Gy per fraction) has been delivered to the skin. Different patient characteristics and treatment techniques may lead to different degrees of ARD. A variety of ARD severity exists in the literature and our cohort for NPC patients treated with PBT or XRT. The proportion of patients with grade 1, 2 and 3 ARD after treatment with PBT was 0-64.3%, 25-67.4%, and 3.6–42.0%, respectively[3, 4, 14, 20]. For XRT, it varies from 6.4–51.0% for grade 1, 31–69% for grade 2, and 8.8–23.6% for grade3 in selected reports [21–24]. In a clinical setting, the comparison of ARD between PBT and XRT remains inconsistent. After matching between groups, a higher probability of grade 3 ARD was observed in the PBT group reported by Chou et al. (35% versus 7.5%)[3] and Holliday et al. (40% versus 25%)[25] but was not observed by Li et al. (3.6% versus 2.0%) [4].

The severity of ARD is related to numerous risk factors that have been classified as being patient-related or treatment-related. Patient-related risk factors may include age, gender, smoking, nutritional status, body mass index, comorbidity, or genetic factors. Treatment-related factors include the total radiation dose, the dose fractionation schedule, RT technique, combination with chemotherapy, and the volume and surface area of irradiated tissue [9, 26, 27]. For NPC patients, in a large cohort study treated with XRT (including intensity modulated RT or three-dimensional conformal RT), treatment with intensity modulated RT, lower performance status and multicycle chemotherapy were observed to be predictors of severe ARD [28]. In our patients uniformly treated with PBT with standardized protocols including total dose and dose per fraction, chemotherapy regimens, and skin care, the variables of smoking habit and advanced nodal status were observed to be significant predictors for grade 2 and 3 ARD.

The correlation of habitual smoking with ARD remains inconsistent in the literature for patients treated with XRT [26, 29, 30]. For PBT, very limited data are available. The association between habitual smoking and the severity of ARD after PBT has been previously reported in patients with breast cancer [12] but was reported for the first time in patients with NPC in the present study. The mechanism of the effect of smoking on ARD is unknown. However, strong evidence has demonstrated that smoking adversely impacts the wound healing process [31]. Tissue hypoxia is viewed as a fundamental mechanism through which cigarette smoking disrupts acute wound healing [32]. Cigarette smoking impairs the function of several cell types such as neutrophils and macrophages important to inflammatory and bactericidal activity and also compromises oxygen delivery to tissues [33].

Patients with advanced nodal status often receive a higher radiation dose to the neck skin, putting them at a higher risk of severe ARD. The identification of neck skin as a sensitive structure for dose optimization during the process of treatment planning of RT could significantly reduce the skin dose to a tolerable level [34]. The volume of skin at 2mm receiving a dose above 56Gy was observed to be predictive of grade 2 and 3 ARD for head and neck cancer patients treated with XRT [35]. The dosimetric parameters related to the severity of ARD were not explored in current study. As far as we know, a validated dosimetric constraint for neck skin used to mitigate the severity of ARD for patients treated with PBT at head and neck area is still lacking, though, some dosimetric parameters related to severe ARD in chest skin or scalp have been reported in patients treated with PBT [12, 15].

The differential biologic effects on normal tissue induced by PBT compared to XRT are not well established [36, 37]. The pathogenesis of ARD involves a combination of direct radiation injury and a subsequent inflammatory response, affecting cellular elements in the epidermis, dermis, and vasculature. Direct radiation injury causes changes in skin pigmentation through the migration of melanosomes, interrupted hair growth, and damage to the deeper dermis, which disrupts the normal process of skin cell repopulation, resulting in erythema due to dermal vessel dilation and release of a histamine-like substance [38]. The mechanism of radiation-induced inflammation is not yet completely understood, but keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells stimulate immune cells in the epidermal and dermal layers, as well as those in circulation [39].

Some degree of chronic radiodermatitis was observed in our cases with grade 3 ARD after longer follow-up. Grade 3 ARD at the end of XRT has been observed to be associated with neck fibrosis at 6 months in head and neck cancer patients [40]. Chronic radiodermatitis often presents several months to years after RT has been completed. Post-inflammatory hypo- and hyperpigmentation are common chronic changes seen in patients as a result of the dermo-epithelial junction being disrupted, which depends on patient- and treatment-related factors and may persist or normalize with time [9]. Telangiectasia and fibrosis are also common in chronic radiodermatitis in NPC patients. The incidence of symptomatic neck fibrosis varies from 2.3–38% in NPC patients treated with XRT [23, 41]. The consequential effect of ARD induced by PBT on chronic skin injury warrants further investigation.

General management of ARD begins with basic preventive measures, including self-care and the use of prophylactic topical corticosteroids and/or antibiotics. It is difficult to establish strong evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in the approach to self-care for ARD. The medication for ARD induced by PBT generally follows the clinical practice used for patients treated with XRT. Several clinical trials have demonstrated a favorable effect for the use of prophylactic topical corticosteroids [42–44] or silver sulfadiazine [45] to reduce ARD. In our cohort, topical corticosteroid was prescribed for patients with grade 1 ARD and silver sulfadiazine was added if the ARD progressed to grade 2 or more. The regimens were observed to be effective in the treatment of ARD induced by PBT.

Admittedly, there are several limitations to the study. First, the cases were limited to a single institute and it is therefore vulnerable to selection bias. Second, a dosimetric evaluation of the effects of PBT on the skin surface was not conducted due to the limited sample size. Third, the effect of ARD induced by PBT on chronic skin injury needs long-term studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, according to this prospective study, we observe ARD is a major concern for patients with NPC treated with PBT, especially those with a smoking habit or advanced nodal status. Topical corticosteroid and silver sulfadiazine are effective for treating ARD induced by PBT.

Abbreviations

Declarations

Acknowledgements: Not applicable.

Funding: This manpower was the study was supported by the grants from the Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Contract grant number: “CMRPG8J1031-3” and “CMRPG8K1061-2”

Availability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study obtained ethics approval from the Institutional review board/Ethics committee (IRB/EC) of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Number: 202200345B0)

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author’s contributions: KCF and CHL collected and interpreted the data, and was the major contributor in writing the manuscript. FMF conceived of the study and its design, supervised its conduct, carried out target delineation, and helped draft the manuscript. WLT assisted statistical analyses and interpretations of the data. HCC, TLH and CYC participated in recruitment and clinical care of subjects. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. KCF and CHL had equal contribution to this work.

Author’s details:

¹Department of Education, Kaohsiung Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

²Department of Dermatology, Kaohsiung Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

³Department of Otolaryngology, Kaohsiung Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

⁴Department of Hematology and Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

⁵Department of Cosmetics and Fashion Styling, Center for Environmental Toxin and Emerging-Contaminant Research, Cheng Shiu University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 

⁶Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

⁷Department of Medicine, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan

References

1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer observatory: cancer today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer 2018. https://gco.iarc.fr/today (accessed November14, 2020). 2018.
2. Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group. Particle therapy facilities in clinical operation. Available at: https://www.ptcog.ch/index.php/ facilities-in-operation. Accessed January 7, 2022.
3. Chou YC, Fan KH, Lin CY, Hung TM, Huang BS, Chang KP, et al. Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Therapy versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Patients with Nasopharyngeal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Study. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(14).
4. Li X, Kitpanit S, Lee A, Mah D, Sine K, Sherman EJ, et al. Toxicity Profiles and Survival Outcomes Among Patients With Nonmetastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Treated With Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy vs Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2113205.
5. Holliday EB, Frank SJ. Proton therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chin Clin Oncol. 2016;5(2):25.
6. Sherry AD, Pasalic D, Gunn GB, Fuller CD, Phan J, Rosenthal DI, et al. Proton Beam Therapy for Head and Neck Carcinoma of Unknown Primary: Toxicity and Quality of Life. Int J Part Ther. 2021;8(1):234–47.
7. Holliday EB, Garden AS, Rosenthal DI, Fuller CD, Morrison WH, Gunn GB, et al. Proton Therapy Reduces Treatment-Related Toxicities for Patients with Nasopharyngeal Cancer: A Case-Match Control Study of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy. International Journal of Particle Therapy. 2015;2(1):19–28.
8. Leeman JE, Romesser PB, Zhou Y, McBride S, Riaz N, Sherman E, et al. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: expanding the therapeutic window. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(5):e254-e65.
9. Singh M, Alavi A, Wong R, Akita S. Radiodermatitis: A Review of Our Current Understanding. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17(3):277–92.
10. Feight D, Baney T, Bruce S, McQuestion M. Putting evidence into practice. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15(5):481–92.
11. Rzepecki A, Birnbaum M, Ohri N, Daily J, Fox J, Bodner W, et al. Characterizing the effects of radiation dermatitis on quality of life: A prospective survey-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(1):161–3.
12. Liang X, Bradley JA, Zheng D, Rutenberg M, Yeung D, Mendenhall N, et al. Prognostic factors of radiation dermatitis following passive-scattering proton therapy for breast cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):72.
13. Gabani P, Patel H, Thomas MA, Bottani B, Goddu SM, Straube W, et al. Clinical outcomes and toxicity of proton beam radiation therapy for re-irradiation of locally recurrent breast cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019;19:116–22.
14. Williams VM, Parvathaneni U, Laramore GE, Aljabab S, Wong TP, Liao JJ. Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Nasopharynx Cancer: 2-year Outcomes from a Single Institution. Int J Part Ther. 2021;8(2):28–40.
15. Dutz A, Lühr A, Agolli L, Troost EGC, Krause M, Baumann M, et al. Development and validation of NTCP models for acute side-effects resulting from proton beam therapy of brain tumours. Radiother Oncol. 2019;130:164–71.
16. Palma G, Taffelli A, Fellin F, D'Avino V, Scartoni D, Tommasino F, et al. Modelling the risk of radiation induced alopecia in brain tumor patients treated with scanned proton beams. Radiother Oncol. 2020;144:127–34.
17. Lin YH, Cheng JY, Huang BS, Luo SD, Lin WC, Chou SY, et al. Significant Reduction in Vertebral Artery Dose by Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: A Pilot Study for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. J Pers Med. 2021;11(8).
18. Lee N, Harris J, Garden AS, Straube W, Glisson B, Xia P, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: radiation therapy oncology group phase II trial 0225. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(22):3684–90.
19. Zhang Y, Chen L, Hu GQ, Zhang N, Zhu XD, Yang KY, et al. Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(12):1124–35.
20. Vai A, Molinelli S, Rossi E, Iacovelli NA, Magro G, Cavallo A, et al. Proton Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients: Dosimetric and NTCP Evaluation Supporting Clinical Decision. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(5).
21. Fareed MM, AlAmro AS, Bayoumi Y, Tunio MA, Ismail AS, Akasha R, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous modulated accelerated boost technique and chemotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:318.
22. Kuang WL, Zhou Q, Shen LF. Outcomes and prognostic factors of conformal radiotherapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Transl Oncol. 2012;14(10):783–90.
23. Peng G, Wang T, Yang KY, Zhang S, Zhang T, Li Q, et al. A prospective, randomized study comparing outcomes and toxicities of intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2012;104(3):286–93.
24. Zhao LN, Zhou B, Shi M, Wang JH, Xiao F, Xu M, et al. Clinical outcome for nasopharyngeal carcinoma with predominantly WHO II histology treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in non-endemic region of China. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(9):864–9.
25. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Coia L, Goitein M, Munzenrider JE, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):109–22.
26. Chugh R, Bisht YS, Nautiyal V, Jindal R. Factors Influencing the Severity of Acute Radiation-Induced Skin and Mucosal Toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer. Cureus. 2021;13(9):e18147.
27. Isomura M, Oya N, Tachiiri S, Kaneyasu Y, Nishimura Y, Akimoto T, et al. IL12RB2 and ABCA1 genes are associated with susceptibility to radiation dermatitis. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(20):6683–9.
28. Yao Z, Cheng B. Morbidity in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma and Radiation-Induced Skin Lesions: Cause, Risk Factors, and Dermatitis Evolution and Severity. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021;34(12):1–8.
29. Xie Y, Wang Q, Hu T, Chen R, Wang J, Chang H, et al. Risk Factors Related to Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients After Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:738851.
30. Meyer F, Fortin A, Wang CS, Liu G, Bairati I. Predictors of severe acute and late toxicities in patients with localized head-and-neck cancer treated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(4):1454–62.
31. McDaniel JC, Browning KK. Smoking, chronic wound healing, and implications for evidence-based practice. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2014;41(5):415 – 23; quiz E1-2.
32. Morecraft R, Blair WF, Brown TD, Gable RH. Acute effects of smoking on digital artery blood flow in humans. J Hand Surg Am. 1994;19(1):1–7.
33. Guo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010;89(3):219–29.
34. Lee N, Chuang C, Quivey JM, Phillips TL, Akazawa P, Verhey LJ, et al. Skin toxicity due to intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(3):630–7.
35. Mori M, Cattaneo GM, Dell'Oca I, Foti S, Calandrino R, Di Muzio NG, et al. Skin DVHs predict cutaneous toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer patients treated with Tomotherapy. Phys Med. 2019;59:133–41.
36. Britten RA, Nazaryan V, Davis LK, Klein SB, Nichiporov D, Mendonca MS, et al. Variations in the RBE for cell killing along the depth-dose profile of a modulated proton therapy beam. Radiat Res. 2013;179(1):21–8.
37. Cuaron JJ, Chang C, Lovelock M, Higginson DS, Mah D, Cahlon O, et al. Exponential Increase in Relative Biological Effectiveness Along Distal Edge of a Proton Bragg Peak as Measured by Deoxyribonucleic Acid Double-Strand Breaks. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):62–9.
38. Morgan K. Radiotherapy-induced skin reactions: prevention and cure. Br J Nurs. 2014;23(16):S24, S6-32.
39. Hymes SR, Strom EA, Fife C. Radiation dermatitis: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment 2006. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(1):28–46.
40. Nevens D, Duprez F, Daisne JF, Laenen A, De Neve W, Nuyts S. Radiotherapy induced dermatitis is a strong predictor for late fibrosis in head and neck cancer. The development of a predictive model for late fibrosis. Radiother Oncol. 2017;122(2):212–6.
41. Yeh SA, Tang Y, Lui CC, Huang YJ, Huang EY. Treatment outcomes and late complications of 849 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiotherapy alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62(3):672–9.
42. Schmuth M, Wimmer MA, Hofer S, Sztankay A, Weinlich G, Linder DM, et al. Topical corticosteroid therapy for acute radiation dermatitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Br J Dermatol. 2002;146(6):983–91.
43. Miller RC, Schwartz DJ, Sloan JA, Griffin PC, Deming RL, Anders JC, et al. Mometasone furoate effect on acute skin toxicity in breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a phase III double-blind, randomized trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N06C4. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(5):1460–6.
44. Menon A, Prem SS, Kumari R. Topical Betamethasone Valerate As a Prophylactic Agent to Prevent Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Head and Neck Malignancies: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(1):151–60.
45. Hemati S, Asnaashari O, Sarvizadeh M, Motlagh BN, Akbari M, Tajvidi M, et al. Topical silver sulfadiazine for the prevention of acute dermatitis during irradiation for breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(8):1613–8.

Tables

Table 1. Patient characteristics (N=57)

AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system 8^th edition 

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis of predictors of grade 2 and 3 acute radiation dermatitis

^aGrading was based on the criteria of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.

^bChi-square test was used for the comparison of the clinical variables among patients presenting with a maximum ARD grade of 2 and 3, p<0.05 was considered statistical significance. 

^cBinary logistic regression method was used for multivariate analysis, p<0.05 was considered statistical significance; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.