- Case report
- Open Access
Protective effect of transparent film dressing on proton therapy induced skin reactions
© Whaley et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 7 June 2012
Accepted: 19 January 2013
Published: 24 January 2013
Proton therapy can result in clinically significant radiation dermatitis. In some clinical scenarios, such as lung or breast cancer, the risk of severe radiation dermatitis may limit beam arrangement and prescription doses. Patients undergoing proton therapy for prostate cancer commonly develop mild radiation dermatitis. Herein, we report the outcomes of two prostate cancer patients whose radiation dermatitis appears to have been substantially diminished by transparent film dressings (Beekley stickers).
This is a descriptive report of the skin toxicity observed in two patients undergoing proton therapy for prostate cancer at a single institution in 2011. A phantom dosimetric study was performed to evaluate the impact of a transparent film dressing on a beam’s spread out Bragg peak (SOBP).
Two patients with low risk prostate cancer were treated with proton therapy to a total dose of 79.2Gy (RBE) in 1.8 Gy (RBE) fractions using two opposed lateral beams daily. Both patients had small circular (2.5 cm diameter) transparent adhesive markers placed on their skin to assist with daily alignment. Patient 1 had markers in place bilaterally for the entirety of treatment. Patient 2 had a marker in place for three weeks on one side and six weeks on the other. Over the course of therapy, both men developed typical Grade 1 radiation dermatitis (asymptomatic erythema) on their hips; however, in both patients, the erythema was substantially decreased beneath the markers. Patient 2 demonstrated less attenuation and thus greater erythema in the skin covered for three weeks compared to the skin covered for six weeks. The difference in skin changes between the covered and uncovered skin persisted for at least 1 month. A phantom study of double scattered beam SOBP with and without the marker in the beam path showed no gross dosimetric effect.
Transparent adhesive markers appear to have attenuated radiation dermatitis in these two patients without affecting the SOBP. One patient may have exhibited a dose–response effect. The reproducibility and underlying mechanisms are unclear. However, the potential to leverage this effect to improve proton-related radiation dermatitis in other clinical scenarios is intriguing. Exploratory animal studies are underway.
Proton therapy is an attractive radiation modality because plans can be created with relatively low integral dose to normal tissues. However, radiation dermatitis is common because of two features unique to proton plans. First, unlike the large integral dose spread out over a considerable surface area frequently seen with intensity modulated radiation therapy with photons, the physical properties of proton often permit the utilization of fewer beam angles. Second, due to the narrow Bragg peak seen with a monoenergetic beam, proton plans must utilize multiple energies in a given beam direction to create a spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) to cover a target volume with uniform dose . As Bragg peaks of different energies are summed to create uniform dose across the target in depth, there is an increase in entrance dose compared with a monoenergetic Bragg peak due to the summing of the entrance dose from each of the individual peaks. Thus, the limited beam angles and multiple energies utilized to create the SOBP with minimal integral dose can lead to a substantial increase in the entrance dose to skin.
In some clinical scenarios, such as lung or breast cancer, the risk of severe radiation dermatitis may limit proton beam arrangement options and total prescription doses. In patients undergoing proton therapy for prostate cancer, radiation dermatitis is a consistent finding but is usually limited to asymptomatic erythema in the treatment portal. Herein, we report the outcomes of two prostate cancer patients whose radiation dermatitis appears to have been substantially diminished by transparent adhesive markers on the treated skin. In addition, we advance several hypotheses to explain this apparent protective effect.
This is a descriptive report of the skin toxicity observed in two patients undergoing proton therapy for prostate cancer at the University of Pennsylvania in 2011. Both patients were consented and enrolled onto institutional review board-approved prospective protocols as part of their treatment. Skin toxicity was measured according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4 (CTCAE) with asymptomatic, mild erythema representative of grade 1 radiation dermatitis .
All patients undergoing proton or photon based radiation therapy for prostate cancer at the University of Pennsylvania have tattoos placed at the time of simulation for daily localization purposes. In a small subset of patients with difficult to identify tattoos, transparent adhesive markers are placed at the time of set-up to aid in daily setup. If these markers detach during a patient’s 9 week therapy, they may be replaced. Beekley transparent markers are approximately 0.1 mm in thickness, 2.5 cm in width, and are made of polyurethane film and acrylate, a common semipermeable film. The film is impermeable to water and bacteria while allowing the diffusion of air to the skin beneath. Neither the thickness nor the composition is uniquely concerning for an interaction with a high energy proton beam.
Both patients in this series were treated for localized low risk prostate cancer with definitive proton therapy. Patient 1 was treated using a double scattering delivery, and patient 2 was treated using uniform scanning delivery. Treatment included 44 fractions of 1.8 Gy (RBE) to a total dose of 79.2Gy (RBE) using two opposed lateral beams daily. After an initial 5040 CGE to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles, a boost of 2880 CGE was given to the prostate only. Both patients were treated supine in a knee/foot lock for immobilization. Nothing was placed over the skin at the time of treatment. Skin entrance doses ranged from 27 Gy to 29 Gy.
This observational series is the first, to our knowledge, to report an apparent protective effect of transparent adhesive markers on radiation dermatitis associated with proton beam therapy. As an initial investigation step, we performed basic dosimetric calculations on a phantom water tank with adhesive markers that demonstrated no measurable effect on the SOBP in phantom studies. Whether this observation is reproducible and the underlying mechanisms by which it occurred are unclear; however, this phenomenon has been observed in many of our prostate cancer patients undergoing proton therapy. We have used transparent film dressings in patients receiving photon radiation in the past, but due to the lower intrinsic skin dose and larger number of beam angles, patients do not typically have any noticeable skin erythema with treatment. Thus, it is similarly unclear whether this effect is unique to skin effects of proton radiation. Preclinical mechanistic and phenomenological studies are currently underway using a porcine skin model system to test a number of potential hypotheses. These hypotheses separate roughly into two categories, dosimetric and biological.
The possible dosimetric explanations for our observed effect involve the transparent adhesive marker quantitatively altering the physical dose to skin tissue. One such hypothesis is that the transparent adhesive marker disrupts the charged particle equilibrium at the air-skin interface . Interface perturbations are known to occur at air-tissue interfaces and certainly complicate proton treatment planning for lung cancers. However, it is quite unlikely that this particular 0.1 mm marker with a composition comprised mostly of hydrogen and carbon would in any way change the typical air-skin interface. Another hypothesis is that low energy particles are created from scatter from the beam line components upstream of the patient. If the creation of low energy scatter particles were occurring, there is a small possibility these particles could be diminished by 1 mm of substance. Additionally, if the skin reactions were related to creation of low energy particles in the beam line components, we would expect less skin dermatitis in the patients who are treated on the fixed beam gantry that does not have beam line components (i.e. scatterers, MLC, or compensator). However, although we are currently evaluating this using a combination of measurements and modeling, this also seems unlikely given the phenomenon has also been observed with a fixed beam proton gantry.
The possible biological explanations for our observed effect involve transparent adhesive marker altering the skin response to proton radiation. One hypothesis is that the transparent adhesive marker is able to alter the diffusion of oxygen from the external environment, leading to decreased tissue oxygenation in the first few millimeters below the adhesive. The epidermis is known to be devoid of blood vessels and relies on diffusion from capillaries in the papillary dermis for oxygenation . Additionally, it has been suggested that the outermost 0.25-0.4 mm of epidermis is almost entirely oxygenated by external oxygen . If this is in fact the case, small manipulations could alter flow oxygen levels at the level of the epidermis and deep dermis, leading to diminished oxygenation. The mechanism of radiation dermatitis has been documented to involve epidermal atrophy, upper dermal edema, capillary dilation, and melanophage deposition  and the slope of the dose response profile for these effects would be decreased if the tissue experienced a modest decrease in oxygen levels. Another hypothesis is that the transparent adhesive marker may alter the tensile forces on the most superficial portions of the skin. As mentioned above, with limited blood supply to the epidermis, small manipulations could alter the supply of inflammatory components from the general circulation. The inflammatory response to radiation is well-documented to involve an influx of inflammatory components . If the tension related to the markers could alter the local response within the most superficial millimeters beneath the markers, it seems reasonable this could relate to the diminished response. Note that these last two mechanisms could act simultaneously to decrease tissue oxygenation. Finally, it is possible that the adhesive could have radioprotective properties. This could occur from direct antioxidant effects that have been observed for topically applied oils and oil derived substances or indirectly through stimulation of mild, acute non-specific local inflammation that has been demonstrated to provide radioprotection through unclear mechanisms .
There are several implications of our observations. First, acute skin toxicity from proton beam has been shown to be dose limiting; therefore, its reduction is an important clinical goal. In a pilot study of proton therapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation in 20 patients with limited beam arrangements, investigators at the Massachusetts General Hospital documented an unexpectedly high rate of acute skin toxicity: moderate to severe skin color changes developed in 79% of patients at 3 to 4 weeks and moderate to severe moist desquamation in 22% of patients at 6 to 8 weeks . In an effort to reduce skin toxicity, investigators at the MD Anderson have proposed an approach using 3–4 beams, though this comes at the expense of exposing a greater volume of non-target tissue . Within our own department, among the patients treated on prospective trials with proton therapy for lung, sarcoma, and previously irradiated recurrent tumors, mild to moderate (Grade II-III) radiation dermatitis is one of the most common toxicities encountered. On occasion, concern for radiation dermatitis has prompted treatment breaks and alteration of beam arrangements.
The potential to leverage the apparent skin-sparing effect described above to improve proton-related radiation dermatitis in other clinical scenarios is intriguing. Exploratory animal studies are underway.
According to protocol, written informed consent was obtained from each patient for publication of this report and any accompanying images.
National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) through NASA NCC 9–58.
This research was presented by Jonathan T. Whaley at 51st Annual Meeting of Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group, NCC, Seoul, Korea, May 17–19, 2012.
- Kahn , Faiz M: The physics of radiation therapy. 4th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010:515-531.Google Scholar
- The cancer therapy evaluation program common terminology criteria for adverse events, version 4.0. http://ctep.cancer.gov/forms
- Broerse JJ, Zoetelief J: Dose inhomogeneities for photons and neutrons near interfaces. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2004,112(4):509-517. 10.1093/rpd/nch092View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Burns DA, Breathnach S, Cox N, Griffiths C: Rook’s Textbook of dermatology. 8th edition. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Science; 2010:3. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2010View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stucker M, Struk A, Altmeyer P, Herde M, Baumgartl H, Lubbers DR: The cutaneous uptake of atmospheric oxygen contributes significantly to the oxygen supply of human dermis and epidermis. J Physiol 2002,538(Pt 3):985-994.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Price NM: Radiation dermatitis following electron beam therapy. An evaluation of patients ten years after total skin irradiation for mycosis fungoides. Arch Dermatol 1978,114(1):63-66. 10.1001/archderm.1978.01640130027008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hall , Eric J, Giaccia Aj: Radiobiology for the radiologist. 6th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006:327-348.Google Scholar
- Herodin F, Laval JD, Fatome M, Fauve RM: Radioprotective effect of an acute non-specific inflammation in mice. Int J Radiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med 1987,51(3):549-559. 10.1080/09553008714551021View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kozak KR, Smith BL, Adams J, Kornmeh E, Katz A, Gadd M, Spech M, Hughes K, Gioioso V, Lu HM, Braaten K, Recht A, Powell SN, DeLan TF, Taghian AG: Accelerated partial-breast irradiation using proton beams: initial clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006,66(3):691-698. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.041View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wang X, Amos RA, Zhang X, Taddei PJ, Woodward WA, Hoffman KE, Yu TK, Terreffe W, Oh J, Perkins GH, Salehpour M, Zhang SX, Sun TL, Gillin M, Buchholz TA, Strom EA: External-beam accelerated partial breast irradiation using multiple proton beam configurations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011,80(5):1464-1472. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.052View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.