International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2015
Effect of Film Dressing on Acute Radiation Dermatitis Secondary to Proton Beam Therapy.
Контролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arimura Takeshi, Ogino Takashi, Yoshiura Takashi, Toi Yuya, Kawabata Michiko, Chuman Ikuko, Wada Kiyotaka, Kondo Naoaki, Nagayama Shinichi, Hishikawa Yoshio
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) is one of the most common adverse events of proton beam therapy (PBT), and there is currently no effective method to manage ARD. The purpose of this study was to examine the prophylactic effect of a film dressing using Airwall on PBT-induced ARD compared with standard skin managements.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 271 patients with prostate cancer who were scheduled for PBT at our center were divided into 2 groups based on their own requests: 145 patients (53%) chose Airwall (group A) and 126 patients (47%) received standard treatments (group B). We evaluated irradiated skin every other day during PBT and followed up once a week for a month after completion of PBT.
RESULTS: Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 dermatitis were seen in 2, 122, 21, and 0 and 0, 65, 57, and 4 patients in groups A and B, respectively (P<.001). Numbers of days to grades 1 and 2 ARD development were 34.9 ± 14.3 and 54.7 ± 10.3 and 31.8 ± 11.3 and 54.4 ± 11.6 in groups A and B, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups. Eighteen patients (12%) in group A who experienced problems in the region covered with Airwall switched to standard skin care after peeling the film off.
CONCLUSIONS: Film dressing using Airwall reduced the severity of ARD without delaying the response time of the skin to proton beam irradiation compared with standard skin management. Hence, film dressing is considered a promising measure for preventing ARD secondary to PBT.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 271 patients with prostate cancer who were scheduled for PBT at our center were divided into 2 groups based on their own requests: 145 patients (53%) chose Airwall (group A) and 126 patients (47%) received standard treatments (group B). We evaluated irradiated skin every other day during PBT and followed up once a week for a month after completion of PBT.
RESULTS: Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 dermatitis were seen in 2, 122, 21, and 0 and 0, 65, 57, and 4 patients in groups A and B, respectively (P<.001). Numbers of days to grades 1 and 2 ARD development were 34.9 ± 14.3 and 54.7 ± 10.3 and 31.8 ± 11.3 and 54.4 ± 11.6 in groups A and B, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups. Eighteen patients (12%) in group A who experienced problems in the region covered with Airwall switched to standard skin care after peeling the film off.
CONCLUSIONS: Film dressing using Airwall reduced the severity of ARD without delaying the response time of the skin to proton beam irradiation compared with standard skin management. Hence, film dressing is considered a promising measure for preventing ARD secondary to PBT.