Kai Kroeger1, Khaled Elsayad2, Christos Moustakis1, Uwe Haverkamp1, Hans Theodor Eich1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Straße 33 (Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1), 48149, Muenster, Germany. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Straße 33 (Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1), 48149, Muenster, Germany. Khaled.elsayad@uni-muenster.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-dose total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) is attracting increased interest for the effective palliative treatment of primary cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma (pCTCL). In this study, we compared toxicity profiles following various radiation doses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 60 patients who underwent TSEBT for pCTCL between 2000 and 2016 at the University Hospital of Munster. The treatment characteristics of the radiotherapy (RT) regimens and adverse events (AEs) were then analyzed and compared. RESULTS: In total, 67 courses of TSEBT were administered to 60 patients. Of these patients, 34 (51%) received a standard dose with a median surface dose of 30 Gy and 33 patients (49%) received a low dose with the median surface dose of 12 Gy (7 salvage low-dose TSEBT courses were administered to 5 patients). After a median follow-up of 15 months, the overall AE rate was 100%, including 38 patients (57%) with grade 2 and 7 (10%) with grade 3 AEs. Patients treated with low-dose TSEBT had significantly fewer grade 2 AEs than those with conventional dose regimens (33 vs. 79%, P < 0.001). A lower grade 3 AE rate was also observed in patients who had received the low-dose regimen compared to those with the conventional dose regimens (6 vs. 15%, P = 0.78). Multiple/salvage low-dose TSEBT courses were not associated with an increased risk of acute AEs. CONCLUSION: Low-dose TSEBT regimens are associated with significantly fewer grade 2 acute toxicities compared with conventional doses of TSEBT. Repeated/Salvage low-dose TSEBT, however, appears to be tolerable and can even be applied safely in patients with cutaneous relapses.
BACKGROUND: Low-dose total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) is attracting increased interest for the effective palliative treatment of primary cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma (pCTCL). In this study, we compared toxicity profiles following various radiation doses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 60 patients who underwent TSEBT for pCTCL between 2000 and 2016 at the University Hospital of Munster. The treatment characteristics of the radiotherapy (RT) regimens and adverse events (AEs) were then analyzed and compared. RESULTS: In total, 67 courses of TSEBT were administered to 60 patients. Of these patients, 34 (51%) received a standard dose with a median surface dose of 30 Gy and 33 patients (49%) received a low dose with the median surface dose of 12 Gy (7 salvage low-dose TSEBT courses were administered to 5 patients). After a median follow-up of 15 months, the overall AE rate was 100%, including 38 patients (57%) with grade 2 and 7 (10%) with grade 3 AEs. Patients treated with low-dose TSEBT had significantly fewer grade 2 AEs than those with conventional dose regimens (33 vs. 79%, P < 0.001). A lower grade 3 AE rate was also observed in patients who had received the low-dose regimen compared to those with the conventional dose regimens (6 vs. 15%, P = 0.78). Multiple/salvage low-dose TSEBT courses were not associated with an increased risk of acute AEs. CONCLUSION: Low-dose TSEBT regimens are associated with significantly fewer grade 2 acute toxicities compared with conventional doses of TSEBT. Repeated/Salvage low-dose TSEBT, however, appears to be tolerable and can even be applied safely in patients with cutaneous relapses.
Authors: Lise M Lindahl; Maria R Kamstrup; Peter M Petersen; Johan Wirén; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Robert Gniadecki; Lars Iversen; Lena Specht Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Lisa Lowry; Paul Smith; Wendi Qian; Stephen Falk; Kim Benstead; Tim Illidge; David Linch; Martin Robinson; Andrew Jack; Peter Hoskin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Franz Trautinger; Johanna Eder; Chalid Assaf; Martine Bagot; Antonio Cozzio; Reinhard Dummer; Robert Gniadecki; Claus-Detlev Klemke; Pablo L Ortiz-Romero; Evangelia Papadavid; Nicola Pimpinelli; Pietro Quaglino; Annamari Ranki; Julia Scarisbrick; Rudolf Stadler; Liisa Väkevä; Maarten H Vermeer; Sean Whittaker; Rein Willemze; Robert Knobler Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Maria R Kamstrup; Robert Gniadecki; Lars Iversen; Lone Skov; Peter Meidahl Petersen; Annika Loft; Lena Specht Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ch Flores-Balcázar; D M Urías-Arce; Y Charli-Joseph; M A De León-Alfaro; S I Pérez-Álvarez; R Ramos-Prudencio Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Matthew R Kudelka; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Mary Jo Lechowicz; Natia Esiashvili; Christopher R Flowers; Mohammad K Khan; Pamela B Allen Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: Eric M Schaff; Stephen A Rosenberg; Stephanie J Olson; Steven P Howard; Kristin A Bradley Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Joy Tao; Courtney Hentz; Michael L Mysz; Issra Rashed; David Eilers; James Swan; Rebecca Tung; Bahman Emami Journal: Case Rep Dermatol Med Date: 2018-08-07
Authors: Elizabeth B Jeans; Yue-Houng Hu; Bradley J Stish; Brian King; Mark Davis; William S Harmsen; Kristin M Fruth; Sarah E Locher; Christopher L Deufel; Jaden D Evans; James A Martenson; Scott C Lester Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-08-08