Iosif Strouthos1,2, Georgios Chatzikonstantinou3,4, Nikolaos Tselis3,4, Dimitra Bon5, Efstratios Karagiannis3,6, Eleni Zoga3, Konstantinos Ferentinos3, Julia Maximenko3, Vassiliki Nikolettou-Fischer3, Nikolaos Zamboglou3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Starkenburgring 66, 63069, Offenbach, Germany. iosif.strouthos@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Medical Center - Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Robert Koch 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. iosif.strouthos@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Starkenburgring 66, 63069, Offenbach, Germany. 4. Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, J. W. Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 5. Institute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modelling, J. W. Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Otto von Guericke University, Leipziger Straße 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) comprises a key component in the treatment of breast cancer. Radiation-induced skin toxicity is the major adverse event experienced by patients; however, radiodermatitis (RD) prevention and management remains trivial. It is proven that photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy using light-emitting diode (LED) increases wound healing and depicts an anti-inflammatory effect. This single-institute study evaluates the beneficial role of PBM-LED in preventing/reducing RD during breast cancer RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 70 consecutively treated patients, 25 patients were treated with PBM-LED twice a week prior to adjuvant 3D conformal RT after breast-conserving surgery. RD was reported using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0 and pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS). For comparison, a control group (n = 45) received RT without PBM-LED. In addition, a "matched" group (n = 25) was generated from the control group based on propensity for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: In the PBM group, 22 patients (88%) presented grade 1 and 3 (12%) grade 2 RD. In the control group, 25 patients (55.6%) developed grade 1 reactions, 18 patients (40%) grade 2, and 2 (4.4%) patients grade 3 RD. Concerning pain intensity, 15 patients (60%) of the PBM treatment arm reported no pain, 5 patients (20%) VAS 2, and 5 (20%) VAS 3. In the control group, 13 patients (28.9%) reported no pain, 2 (4.4%) VAS 1, 7 (15.6%) VAS 2, 9 patients (20%) reported VAS 3, 12 (26.7%) patients VAS 4, and 2 (4.4%) patients VAS 5. CONCLUSION: PBM-LED therapy applied prior to RT might be effective in decreasing the incidence and sequelae of radiation-induced skin toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving surgery.
BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) comprises a key component in the treatment of breast cancer. Radiation-induced skin toxicity is the major adverse event experienced by patients; however, radiodermatitis (RD) prevention and management remains trivial. It is proven that photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy using light-emitting diode (LED) increases wound healing and depicts an anti-inflammatory effect. This single-institute study evaluates the beneficial role of PBM-LED in preventing/reducing RD during breast cancer RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 70 consecutively treated patients, 25 patients were treated with PBM-LED twice a week prior to adjuvant 3D conformal RT after breast-conserving surgery. RD was reported using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0 and pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS). For comparison, a control group (n = 45) received RT without PBM-LED. In addition, a "matched" group (n = 25) was generated from the control group based on propensity for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: In the PBM group, 22 patients (88%) presented grade 1 and 3 (12%) grade 2 RD. In the control group, 25 patients (55.6%) developed grade 1 reactions, 18 patients (40%) grade 2, and 2 (4.4%) patients grade 3 RD. Concerning pain intensity, 15 patients (60%) of the PBM treatment arm reported no pain, 5 patients (20%) VAS 2, and 5 (20%) VAS 3. In the control group, 13 patients (28.9%) reported no pain, 2 (4.4%) VAS 1, 7 (15.6%) VAS 2, 9 patients (20%) reported VAS 3, 12 (26.7%) patients VAS 4, and 2 (4.4%) patients VAS 5. CONCLUSION:PBM-LED therapy applied prior to RT might be effective in decreasing the incidence and sequelae of radiation-induced skin toxicity in breast cancerpatients treated with breast-conserving surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Light-emitting diode (LED); Photobiomodulation; Radiation therapy; Radiodermatitis
Authors: Douglas Fife; David J Rayhan; Shahdad Behnam; Arisa Ortiz; Laila Elkeeb; Lisa Aquino; D Eduardo Roa; Nilam Ramsinghani; Jeffrey Kuo; Robert Newcomb; Christopher B Zachary; Kristen M Kelly Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: B Fisher; J Dignam; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; J Costantino; W Poller; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; M Kavanah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Salvo; E Barnes; J van Draanen; E Stacey; G Mitera; D Breen; A Giotis; G Czarnota; J Pang; C De Angelis Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ursula Hille-Betz; Bernhard Vaske; Michael Bremer; Philipp Soergel; Sudip Kundu; Rüdiger Klapdor; Peter Hillemanns; Christoph Henkenberens Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Mariana de Pauli Paglioni; Carolina Guimarães Bonfim Alves; Elisa Kauark Fontes; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Ana Carolina Prado Ribeiro; Thaís Bianca Brandão; Cesar Augusto Migliorati; Alan Roger Santos-Silva Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jolien Robijns; Sandrine Censabella; Stefan Claes; Luc Pannekoeke; Lore Bussé; Dora Colson; Iris Kaminski; Joy Lodewijckx; Paul Bulens; Annelies Maes; Leen Noé; Marc Brosens; An Timmermans; Ivo Lambrichts; Veerle Somers; Jeroen Mebis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jolien Robijns; Sandrine Censabella; Stefan Claes; Luc Pannekoeke; Lore Bussé; Dora Colson; Iris Kaminski; Victoria Broux; Joy Lodewijckx; Sofie Puts; Paul Bulens; Annelies Maes; Leen Noé; Marc Brosens; An Timmermans; Ivo Lambrichts; Veerle Somers; Jeroen Mebis Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Jolien Robijns; Raj G Nair; Joy Lodewijckx; Praveen Arany; Andrei Barasch; Jan M Bjordal; Paolo Bossi; Anne Chilles; Patricia M Corby; Joel B Epstein; Sharon Elad; Reza Fekrazad; Eduardo Rodrigues Fregnani; Marie-Thérèse Genot; Ana M C Ibarra; Michael R Hamblin; Vladimir Heiskanen; Ken Hu; Jean Klastersky; Rajesh Lalla; Sofia Latifian; Arun Maiya; Jeroen Mebis; Cesar A Migliorati; Dan M J Milstein; Barbara Murphy; Judith E Raber-Durlacher; Hendrik J Roseboom; Stephen Sonis; Nathaniel Treister; Yehuda Zadik; René-Jean Bensadoun Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: David Krug; René Baumann; Wilfried Budach; Marciana Nona Duma; Jürgen Dunst; Petra Feyer; Rainer Fietkau; Wulf Haase; Wolfgang Harms; Thomas Hehr; Marc D Piroth; Felix Sedlmayer; Rainer Souchon; Frederik Wenz; Rolf Sauer Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 2.860