Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2014 Jan 31:14:53.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-53.

Prevention and treatment of acute radiation-induced skin reactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Raymond Javan Chan  1 , Joan Webster, Bryan Chung, Louise Marquart, Muhtashimuddin Ahmed, Stuart Garantziotis
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Prevention and treatment of acute radiation-induced skin reactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Raymond Javan Chan et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Radiation-induced skin reaction (RISR) is a common side effect that affects the majority of cancer patients receiving radiation treatment. RISR is often characterised by swelling, redness, pigmentation, fibrosis, and ulceration, pain, warmth, burning, and itching of the skin. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of interventions which aim to prevent or manage RISR in people with cancer.

Methods: We searched the following databases up to November 2012: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), CINAHL (from 1981) and LILACS (from 1982). Randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for preventing or managing RISR in cancer patients were included. The primary outcomes were development of RISR, and levels of RISR and symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were time taken to develop erythema or dry desquamation; quality of life; time taken to heal, a number of skin reaction and symptom severity measures; cost, participant satisfaction; ease of use and adverse effects. Where appropriate, we pooled results of randomized controlled trials using mean differences (MD) or odd ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Forty-seven studies were included in this review. These evaluated six types of interventions (oral systemic medications; skin care practices; steroidal topical therapies; non-steroidal topical therapies; dressings and other). Findings from two meta-analyses demonstrated significant benefits of oral Wobe-Mugos E for preventing RISR (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.38)) and limiting the maximal level of RISR (MD -0.92 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.48)). Another meta-analysis reported that wearing deodorant does not influence the development of RISR (OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.37)).

Conclusions: Despite the high number of trials in this area, there is limited good, comparative research that provides definitive results suggesting the effectiveness of any single intervention for reducing RISR. More research is required to demonstrate the usefulness of a wide range of products that are being used for reducing RISR. Future efforts for reducing RISR severity should focus on promising interventions, such as Wobe-Mugos E and oral zinc.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of included studies by country or region.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Number of included studies sample size.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of comparison: Whole-Mugos E vs usual care (no medication), Outcome: Development of RISR (Yes/No).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of comparison: Deodorant vs non-deodorant, Outcome: Development of a RISR.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot of comparison: Wobe-Mugos E vs usual care (no medication), Outcome: Maximum levels of skin toxicity as measure by EORTC/RTOG, with a possible range of 0-4.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot of comparison: trolamine vs control. Outcome: Maximum levels of skin toxicity as measure by EORTC/RTOG, with a possible range of 0-4.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Maduro JH, Pras E, Willemse PH, de Vries EG. Acute and long-term toxicity following radiotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003;29(6):471–488. doi: 10.1016/S0305-7372(03)00117-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vaz A, Pinto-Neto A, Conde D, Costa-Paiva L, Morais S, Esteves S. Quality of life of women with gynecologic cancer: associated factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007;276(6):583–589. doi: 10.1007/s00404-007-0397-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Porock D. Factors influencing the severity of radiation skin and oral mucosal reactions: development of a conceptual framework. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2002;11(1):33–43. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2354.2002.00287.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sitton E. Early and late radiation-induced skin alterations. Part II: Nursing care of irradiated skin. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1992;19(6):907–912. - PubMed
    1. Hymes SR, Strom EA, Fife C. Radiation dermatitis: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment 2006. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(1):28–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2005.08.054. - DOI - PubMed