Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 367

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prophylaxis and Management of Acute Radiation-Induced Skin Reactions: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Open access
Salvo, N., Barnes, E., van Draanen, J., Stacey, E., Mitera, G., Breen, D., Giotis, A., Czarnota, G., Pang, J., De Angelis, C.·2010·Current Oncology

Abstract

Radiation therapy is a common treatment for cancer patients. One of the most common side effects of radiation is acute skin reaction (radiation dermatitis) that ranges from a mild rash to severe ulceration. Approximately 85% of patients treated with radiation therapy will experience a moderate-to-severe skin reaction. Acute radiation-induced skin reactions often lead to itching and pain, delays in treatment, and diminished aesthetic appearance—and subsequently to a decrease in quality of life. Surveys have demonstrated that a wide variety of topical, oral, and intravenous agents are used to prevent or to treat radiation-induced skin reactions. We conducted a literature review to identify trials that investigated products for the prophylaxis and management of acute radiation dermatitis. Thirty-nine studies met the pre-defined criteria, with thirty-three being categorized as prophylactic trials and six as management trials. For objective evaluation of skin reactions, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria and the U.S. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria were the most commonly used tools (65% of the studies). Topical corticosteroid agents were found to significantly reduce the severity of skin reactions; however, the trials of corticosteroids evaluated various agents, and no clear indication about a preferred corticosteroid has emerged. Amifostine and oral enzymes were somewhat effective in preventing radiation-induced skin reactions in phase ii and phase iii trials respectively; further large randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to better investigate those products. Biafine cream (Ortho–McNeil Pharmaceuticals, Titusville, NJ, U.S.A.) was found not to be superior to standard regimes in the prevention of radiation-induced skin reactions (n = 6). In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to support the use of a particular agent for the prevention and management of acute radiation-induced skin reactions. Future trials should focus on comparing agents and approaches that, in phase i and ii trials, suggest efficacy. These future phase iii randomized controlled trials must clearly distinguish between preventive and management strategies for radiation-induced dermatitis. Only then can evidence-based guidelines be developed, with the hope of standardizing the approach across centres and of improving the prevention and management of radiation-induced dermatitis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3747/co.v17i4.493

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 367

Metadata

Authors
Salvo, N., Barnes, E., van Draanen, J., Stacey, E., Mitera, G., Breen, D., Giotis, A., Czarnota, G., Pang, J., & De Angelis, C.
Venue
Current Oncology
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2010-08-01
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
94-112
ISSN
  • 1198-0052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1718-7729
OpenAlex
W2008427204
Cited by
367
References
0
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prophylaxis and Management of Acute Radiation-Induced Skin Reactions: A Systematic Review of the Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3747/co.v17i4.493
The paper
Salvo, N., Barnes, E., van Draanen, J., Stacey, E., Mitera, G., Breen, D., Giotis, A., Czarnota, G., Pang, J., & De Angelis, C. (2010). Prophylaxis and Management of Acute Radiation-Induced Skin Reactions: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Current Oncology. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v17i4.493

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.