Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common side effect of adjuvant whole-breast or chest wall irradiation, majorly impacting quality of life in numerous patients. The use of barrier films (polyurethane dressings such as Hydrofilm® and Mepitel® film remaining on the skin for the duration of the radiation treatment) has been investigated as a prophylactic measure in several prospective trials. Here, we critically appraise the available evidence behind preventive barrier film application in the context of breast cancer treatment. International literature was reviewed and high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. The results of 5 RCTs (663 patients; >90% Caucasian) were analysed. Overall, barrier films lead to improved clinician- and patient-reported outcomes: fewer grade ≥2 RD (11% vs. 42%; OR = 0.16; p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (2% vs. 16%; OR = 0.12; p = 0.006), as well as less patient-reported pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0.51; p < 0.001), itching (SMD -0.52; p = 0.001), burning (SMD -0.41; p = 0.011), and limitations in daily activities (SMD -0.20; p = 0.007). Furthermore, barrier films have a high acceptance rate among patients, as well as a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Possible side effects due to its application are mild and mostly self-limiting. Overall, there was a lack of information on the radiation treatment techniques used. The evidence presented in this meta-analysis suggests that barrier films are an excellent tool in the prevention of RD among Caucasian patients receiving whole-breast or chest wall irradiation. Its use should therefore be considered routinely in these patients.

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common acute side effect of breast irradiation. More than a century following the therapeutic utilisation of X-rays, potent preventative and therapeutic options are still lacking. Non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP) is an emerging approach towards treatment of various dermatological disorders. In this study, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of a NIPP device on RD. Thirty patients undergoing hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation were included. Parallel to radiation treatment, the irradiated breast was treated with NIPP with different application regimens. RD was assessed during and after NIPP/radiation, using clinician- and patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, safety and feasibility features were recorded. None of the patients was prescribed topical corticosteroids and none considered the treatment to be unpleasant. RD was less frequent and milder in comparison with standard skin care. Neither NIPP-related adverse events nor side effects were reported. This proven safety and feasibility profile of a topical NIPP device in the prevention and treatment of RD will be used as the framework for a larger intrapatient-randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, using objective and patient-reported outcome measures as an endpoint.

Purpose: Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has become a viable treatment option for resectable brain metastases (BMs). As data on local control and radiation necrosis rates are maturing, we focus on meaningful secondary endpoints such as time to next treatment (TTNT), duration of postoperative corticosteroid treatment, and in-hospital time. Methods: Patients prospectively recruited within an IORT study registry between November 2020 and June 2023 were compared with consecutive patients receiving adjuvant stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) of the resection cavity within the same time frame. TTNT was defined as the number of days between BM resection and start of the next extracranial oncological therapy (systemic treatment, surgery, or radiotherapy) for each of the groups. Results: Of 95 BM patients screened, IORT was feasible in 84 cases (88%) and ultimately performed in 64 (67%). The control collective consisted of 53 SRT patients. There were no relevant differences in clinical baseline features. Mean TTNT (range) was 36 (9 − 94) days for IORT patients versus 52 (11 − 126) days for SRT patients (p = 0.01). Mean duration of postoperative corticosteroid treatment was similar (8 days; p = 0.83), as was mean postoperative in-hospital time (11 versus 12 days; p = 0.97). Mean total in-hospital time for BM treatment (in- and out-patient days) was 11 days for IORT versus 19 days for SRT patients (p < 0.001). Conclusion: IORT for BMs results in faster completion of interdisciplinary treatment when compared to adjuvant SRT, without increasing corticosteroid intake or prolonging in-hospital times. A randomised phase III trial will determine the clinical effects of shorter TTNT.

Purpose: Radiation dermatitis (RD) represents one of the most frequent side effects in radiotherapy (RT). Despite technical progress, mild and moderate RD still affects major subsets of patients and identification and management of patients with a high risk of severe RD is essential. We sought to characterize surveillance and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD in German-speaking hospitals and private centers. Methods: We conducted a survey on RD among German-speaking radiation oncologists inquiring for their evaluation of risk factors, assessment methods, and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD. Results: A total of 244 health professionals from public and private institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland participated in the survey. RT-dependent factors were deemed most relevant for RD onset followed by lifestyle factors, emphasizing the impact of treatment conceptualization and patient education. While a broad majority of 92.8% assess RD at least once during RT, 59.0% of participants report RD at least partially arbitrarily and 17.4% stated to classify RD severity solely arbitrarily. 83.7% of all participants were unaware of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consensus exists on some lifestyle recommendations like avoidance of sun exposure (98.7%), hot baths (95.1%), and mechanical irritation (91.8%) under RT, while deodorant use (63.4% not at all, 22.1% with restrictions) or application of skin lotion (15.1% disapproval) remain controversial and are not recommended by guidelines or evidence-based practices. Conclusion: Identification of patients at an increased risk of RD and subsequent implementation of adequate preventive measures remain relevant and challenging aspects of clinical routines. Consensus exists on several risk factors and nonpharmaceutical prevention recommendations, while RT-dependent risk factors, e.g., the fractionation scheme, or hygienic measures like deodorant use remain controversial. Surveillance is widely lacking methodology and objectivity. Intensifying outreach in the radiation oncology community is needed to improve practice patterns.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) yields excellent local control in patients with a limited number of brain metastases (BMs), but radiation-induced cerebral edema and radiation necrosis (RN) in particular may cause dose-limiting late toxicity, with the same holding true after fractionated radiation therapy for glioma. In symptomatic patients, the first-line standard of care includes corticosteroids, which may, however, be counterproductive in the evolving era of immunotherapy. Boswellic acid (BA), available as an over-the-counter dietary supplement, has been suggested as a potential corticosteroid-sparing alternative because of its anti-inflammatory and antiangiogenic effects. We performed a comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, identifying publications reporting on the use of BA during or after brain irradiation in humans. Using the Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards framework, relevant data are summarized using a meta-narrative approach. Six records (3 for edema reduction in large irradiated volumes and 3 for RN after SRS) were identified, encompassing 130 patients. Roughly half of patients benefited from BA (radiographically or clinically) and about one third could successfully taper dexamethasone or prevent its long-term intake. Tolerability of BA was favorable, with mild gastrointestinal discomfort being reported most frequently. Current drawbacks include unknown optimal formulation as well as timing and dosing, a considerably large number of required daily capsules, and uncertain interactions with other drugs. Overall, the clinical evidence on the use of BA for radiation-induced cerebral edema and RN is lacking and well-designed prospective trials are warranted to further investigate this potential low-cost corticosteroid-sparing option.

In patients requiring prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) or whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases (BMs), hippocampal avoidance (HA) has been shown to preserve neurocognitive function and quality of life. Here, we aim to estimate the incidence of hippocampal and perihippocampal BMs and the subsequent risk of local undertreatment in patients undergoing hippocampal sparing radiotherapy. MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched with the terms "Hippocampus", "Brain Neoplasms", and related terms. Trials reporting on the incidence of hippocampal and/or perihippocampal BMs or hippocampal failure rate after PCI or WBRT were included. Forty records were included, encompassing a total of 5,374 patients with over 32,570 BMs. Most trials employed a 5 mm margin to define the HA zone. In trials reporting on BM incidence, 4.4 % (range 0 - 27 %) and 9.2 % (3 - 41 %) of patients had hippocampal and perihippocampal BMs, respectively. The most common risk factor for hippocampal BMs was the total number of BMs. The reported failure rate within the HA zone after HA-PCI or HA-WBRT was 4.5 % (0 - 13 %), salvageable with radiosurgery in most cases. SCLC histology was not associated with a higher risk of hippocampal failure (OR = 2.49; p = 0.23). In trials comparing with a conventional (non-HA) PCI or WBRT group, HA did not increase the hippocampal failure rate (OR = 1.90; p = 0.17). The overall incidence of hippocampal and perihippocampal BMs is considerably low, with a subsequent low risk of local undertreatment following HA-PCI or HA-WBRT. In patients without involvement, the hippocampus should be spared to preserve neurocognitive function and quality of life.