|
Advertisement |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 22, No 8 (April 15), 2004: pp. 1447-1453 © 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.063 Phase III Randomized Trial of Calendula Officinalis Compared With Trolamine for the Prevention of Acute Dermatitis During Irradiation for Breast CancerFrom the Department of Radiation Oncology and the Department of Biostatistics, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France Address reprint requests to Xavier Montbarbon, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, 28 rue Laënnec, 69373 Lyon Cedex 08, France; e-mail: Montbarb{at}lyon.fnclcc.fr
PURPOSE: The effectiveness of nonsteroid topical agents for the prevention of acute dermatitis during adjuvant radiotherapy for breast carcinoma has not been demonstrated. The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of calendula (Pommade au Calendula par Digestion; Boiron Ltd, Levallois-Perret, France) with that of trolamine (Biafine; Genmedix Ltd, France), which is considered in many institutions to be the reference topical agent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1999 and June 2001, 254 patients who had been operated on for breast cancer and who were to receive postoperative radiation therapy were randomly allocated to application of either trolamine (128 patients) or calendula (126 patients) on the irradiated fields after each session. The primary end point was the occurrence of acute dermatitis of grade 2 or higher. Prognostic factors, including treatment modalities and patient characteristics, were also investigated. Secondary end points were the occurrence of pain, the quantity of topical agent used, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The occurrence of acute dermatitis of grade 2 or higher was significantly lower (41% v 63%; P < .001) with the use of calendula than with trolamine. Moreover, patients receiving calendula had less frequent interruption of radiotherapy and significantly reduced radiation-induced pain. Calendula was considered to be more difficult to apply, but self-assessed satisfaction was greater. Body mass index and adjuvant chemotherapy before radiotherapy after lumpectomy were significant prognostic factors for acute dermatitis. CONCLUSION: Calendula is highly effective for the prevention of acute dermatitis of grade 2 or higher and should be proposed for patients undergoing postoperative irradiation for breast cancer.
About 33,000 women a year in France receive a new diagnosis of breast cancer, and most are treated with radiotherapy after conservative surgery or mastectomy. In approximately 80% of patients, irradiation induces dermatitis, ranging in severity from mild to severe erythema to moist desquamation. The consequences of dermatitis are numerous and include impairment of the quality of life due to pain and interruption of treatment, which may be prejudicial to local control.1,2 No standard treatment has been recommended for the prevention of radiation-induced dermatitis. Keeping irradiated skin clean by washing with soap and water during radiotherapy for breast cancer seemed to prevent acute skin reactions.3 Topical agents, such as corticosteroid creams and other products including aloe vera, Aquaphor (Beirsdorf Inc, Wilton, CT), and trolamine (Biafine; Genmedix Ltd, France), are commonly prescribed at the onset of radiation dermatitis or, in some institutions, at the beginning of radiotherapy. Corticosteroid cream was shown to be significantly more effective than an emollient cream in reducing the occurrence of acute radiation-induced dermatitis in two small randomized studies,4,5 and only few randomized trials have suggested the superiority of noncorticosteroid creams (hyaluronic acid cream, sucralfate cream) compared with placebo.6,7 However, no large randomized studies demonstrated the efficacy of any local, nonsteroid topical agents in preventing radiation-induced dermatitis in postoperative breast cancer.8–11 A survey conducted in 2001 revealed that one third of French radiation oncologists prescribed a preventive topical agent for women undergoing irradiation for breast cancer. The agent used almost exclusively was trolamine; since 1973, it has been the only nonsteroid topical agent for which the patient is reimbursed by the national healthcare system for the indication "radiation-induced dermatitis." Trolamine is an oil-in-water emulsion that can enhance skin healing by recruiting macrophages and modifying the concentrations of various immunomodulators.12,13 Two randomized trials, however, have failed to support a prophylactic advantage of trolamine over best supportive care or another topical agent (Lipiderm; G Pharm Ltd, France).9,10 Trolamine was nevertheless well tolerated, and the randomized trial reported by Fisher et al10 indicated that it was probably more effective in healing radiation-induced dermatitis than no treatment or other topical agents used in best supportive care. In a phase II study of the effectiveness of trolamine for preventing acute skin toxicity in women undergoing radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy, despite frequent grade 2 radiation dermatitis (83%), no treatment delays or interruptions were observed because of skin toxicity.14 Calendula (Pommade au Calendula par Digestion; calendula extract ointment; Boiron Ltd, Levallois-Perret, France) is fabricated from a plant of the marigold family, Calendula officinalis. The digest is obtained by incubation at 75°C in petroleum jelly to extract the liposoluble components of the plant. Calendula is commercialized in France for adjuvant treatment of irritant dermatitis, skin lesions, and superficial burns. In a randomized, open, parallel study with 156 patients of the effectiveness of calendula for the local management of second- and third-degree burns, it was significantly better tolerated than Elase (a proteolytic ointment; Pfizer, New York, NY) and petroleum jelly, and marginally significantly better than petroleum jelly alone for healing.15 The aim of this randomized phase III study was to assess the effectiveness of calendula for the prevention of acute radiation-induced dermatitis of grade 2 or higher during postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer, compared with trolamine. The secondary objectives were to assess pain, treatment interruption as a result of skin reactions, patient satisfaction, and the quantity of the agent used. Prognostic factors for the incidence and severity of radiation-induced dermatitis were assessed and compared with literature data.
Patients Between October 1999 and June 2001, 254 patients in the Department of Radiotherapy at the regional cancer center, Centre Léon Bérard (Lyon, France), were randomly assigned to receive calendula (126 women) or trolamine (128 women). For inclusion, the women had to be 18 to 75 years of age with a nonmetastatic breast adenocarcinoma treated by either lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy or hormonal treatment, and referred to the Department of Radiotherapy for postoperative radiotherapy. No concomitant chemotherapy was allowed. Women with bilateral or in situ breast cancer, patients who were allergic to either of the two agents, and pregnant women were excluded. Informed consent was mandatory. The protocol was approved by an ethical committee.
Methods Patients were asked to start topical application of their ointment on irradiated skin at the onset of radiotherapy, twice a day or more, depending on the occurrence of dermatitis and pain, until completion of their radiotherapy. The allocated agents were delivered directly to the patients by the pharmacist, in similar 100-g packaging. No other prophylactic creams, lotions, or gels were allowed. However, physicians were free to treat established dermatitis of grade 2 or higher and/or allergy as they considered appropriate. To preserve the single blinding, patients were instructed not to use the agent 2 hours or less before an irradiation session or before the treatment evaluation. Each patient attended a consultation with her radiotherapist once a week, during which acute dermal toxicity was evaluated according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale at each irradiated volume: breast or chest wall and, if relevant, submammary fold, armpit, internal mammary nodes, and supraclavicular nodes (Table 1). 16 Pain was assessed each week on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). The relationship between numerical ratings of pain severity and interference with daily functions for cancer patients, and the reliability of VAS to assess acute toxicity, have been demonstrated previously.17–19 The occurrence, duration, and reasons for interruption of radiotherapy or of allocated cream application were registered, as were allergic reactions and quantity of the agent used, until the completion of radiotherapy. At the end of the study, the patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with respect to ease of application, pain, and dermatitis relief.
Statistical Analysis Proc plan command (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used to generate random allocation lists with block sizes of six each. After verification of patient eligibility, the data manager of the study contacted the biostatistics unit to obtain the randomization group. The centralized randomization was stratified according to the patient's skin type, which was evaluated on the basis of skin phenotype according to the Pathak score used in the pathology of melanoma, as grade 1 or 2 versus grade 3, 4, 5, or 620–22 (Table 2). Only the physician was unaware of which ointment the patients were using. A double-blind study was not possible owing to the organoleptic properties of calendula. Skin toxicity was defined as the maximal toxicity observed at all irradiated sites.
The incidence of skin toxicity of grade 2 or higher observed during breast irradiation plus preventive treatment with trolamine ointment was estimated to be 75%. The objective was to demonstrate a 20% decrease in that incidence; that is, 55% toxicity of grade 2 or higher with calendula ointment. To detect this difference with a power of 0.90 using a two-sided test at significance level 0.05, it was necessary to recruit 254 patients. All of the analyses were performed on the basis of intention to treat.
The qualitative measures were compared by the A multivariate analysis for skin toxicity, which tested the type of ointment applied fitted on potential prognostic factors, also was performed. The first logistic regression model was applied to all patients. To test the prognostic value of bra and cup size, a second logistic regression was performed after removal of the data for the 50 patients who had undergone a mastectomy. In both models, a step-by-step elimination procedure was chosen, retaining factors with a two-sided level of significance less than 0.10.
Patients and Treatment Patient characteristics are listed in Table 3. There were no significant differences between the two groups. The irradiation modalities were similar with respect to the target volumes, the type of radiation (photon, electron beam), and the use of a bolus. The dose delivered after lumpectomy was not identical in both groups (P = .06); 15.3% and 6% of patients, respectively, in the trolamine and calendula groups received  61 Gy.
Assessment of Acute Dermatitis and Tolerance The incidence of acute skin toxicity of grade 2 to 3 was 41% (95% CI, 37 to 46) in the group given calendula and 63% (95% CI, 59 to 68) in the group given trolamine (P < .001). Nine patients (7%) given calendula and 20 patients (20%) given trolamine presented with grade 3 toxicity (P = .034). No grade 4 toxicity was observed. The benefit was most marked at sites at risk of maceration (submammary fold, armpit, and tangential area) and sites with thin skin, such as the subclavicular space (Table 4).
Treatment was interrupted for only one patient receiving calendula and for a reason unrelated to the radiotherapy, whereas 15 treatment interruptions were observed in the group given trolamine: 12 treatment interruptions were because of skin toxicity (9%), one treatment interruption was because of a lymphocele abscess, and two treatment interruptions were unrelated to the radiotherapy. The mean length of treatment interruption in this group was 10 days (range, 2 to 22 days). No second interruption of treatment was recorded.
Among the 22 patients with a dose delivered No allergic reactions were observed in the group given calendula, whereas four patients given trolamine developed allergic-type reactions (pruritis and urticaria). The mean maximal pain evaluated on the VAS was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.20 to 1.89) in the group given calendula and 2.10 (95% CI, 1.72 to 2.48) in the group given trolamine (P = .03). Maximal pain was observed during the fifth and sixth weeks of treatment, as were maximal radiotherapy-induced dermatitis and the occurrence of treatment interruptions in the group given trolamine. Adherence to application of the ointments throughout treatment, evaluated by the physician, was considered good for 84% of the patients given calendula and 92% of those given trolamine (P = .047). The self-administered questionnaire on satisfaction was completed by 226 patients, (113 patients with each ointment). Topical application of the ointment was considered difficult by 30% of patients given calendula and 5% of those given trolamine, and two patients stopped using calendula because of that difficulty. The satisfaction of the patients with respect to prevention of erythema (69% with calendula; 39% with trolamine) and pain (65% with calendula; 46% with trolamine) was strongly associated with the occurrence of dermatitis of RTOG grade 0 to 1 (59% with calendula; 37% with trolamine). The mean total number of tubes used was 2.7 for calendula and 4.4 for trolamine, equivalent to 1.62 times more trolamine than calendula.
Prognostic Factors for Acute Radiation-Induced Dermatitis
Multivariate analysis of these factors for all patients revealed four significant variables: BMI, type of surgery, chemotherapy before radiotherapy, and type of ointment applied. Statistically significant interactions were found between the first three factors. Introduction of these interactions into the logistic model (Table 5) showed that the risk for skin toxicity of grade 2 or higher was significantly increased for women whose BMI was
The multivariate analysis for potential prognostic factors for patients who had had a lumpectomy revealed three variables: chemotherapy before radiotherapy, BMI  25, and type of ointment applied. Bra size did not seem to be an independent major risk factor (P = .16) and was not integrated in the final model. The interaction between chemotherapy before radiotherapy and BMI was statistically significant, and was introduced into the analysis. The final model showed that a BMI 25 (P < .001) and chemotherapy before radiotherapy (P < .001) were risk factors for toxicity (Table 6). Type of ointment was highly significant (P = .001). As in the first model, no increase of skin toxicity was observed in patients with chemotherapy before radiotherapy in the subgroup of patients with a BMI 25.
This large randomized study demonstrated that a nonsteroid topical agent was significantly effective in preventing mild to severe radiation-induced dermatitis during radiotherapy for breast cancer. Calendula was statistically significantly superior to trolamine for the primary end point, prevention of skin toxicity of RTOG grade 2 or higher, and for all the secondary end points (including allergy, interruption of treatment, patient satisfaction for relief of pain, and dermatitis), with the exception of ease of application, which was considered by the patients to be more difficult with calendula than with trolamine. The quantity of agent used was significantly smaller with calendula than with trolamine, although this would not lead to a cost reduction, given that the price of calendula is at present twice that of trolamine. We used trolamine as the reference treatment, even though a better effectiveness was not demonstrated in preventing radiation-induced dermatitis than best supportive care or no preventive treatment.9,10 The main reason was that trolamine has been used routinely for several years in our institution, as in many other French radiotherapy departments. Given that most patients are urged by their surgeon and their general practitioner to use trolamine preventively, we considered that this could have led to major deviations from the protocol. Moreover, even though trolamine was not effective in preventing radiation-induced dermatitis, the randomized RTOG study strongly suggested that it might have curative properties.10 Hyaluronic acid, sucralfate, and corticosteroid creams were not used as referent agents because the randomized trials in which they were tested accrued few patients, and the radiation sites were numerous and not homogeneous.4,6,7 Because of differences in texture, color, and smell, it was not possible to perform a double-blind randomized study. Simple blinding of the clinician nevertheless removed bias with respect to the main objective of the study, and the physicians were trained to grade dermatitis before the beginning of the study. The incidence and the severity of RTOG-scale graded skin acute toxicity with trolamine in our study was significantly different than the results reported in the RTOG protocol, with 63% versus 41% grade 2 or higher and 20% versus no grade 3 skin acute toxicity occurrences, respectively.10 The inferior rate of acute toxicity in the RTOG study could be related to an inferior total dose delivered (10% of the patients received less than 59 Gy), and to the exclusion of patients receiving chemotherapy before radiotherapy, whereas 56% patients in the trolamine arm received chemotherapy before radiotherapy in our study. However, despite similar doses and irradiation technique, and despite the exclusion of patients with prior chemotherapy, Fenig et al9 reported 30% grade 3 RTOG acute skin toxicity with trolamine. The incidence of grade 2 was not reported. Given that we did not find any significant value of skin types, it is likely that the differences observed mainly are due to the subjectivity in scoring acute skin reactions with the RTOG scale. However, BMI was not reported in the previous studies and could be a confounding factor. The failure of other studies to demonstrate a preventive effect of other nonsteroid topical agents might have been due to methodological problems, especially the limited numbers of patients included.8–10 Nevertheless, these previous studies did not suggest that the tested agents had any preventive effect. Several prognostic factors have been proposed for radiation-induced acute and late skin toxicity: total daily dose, total delivered dose, fractionation scheme, volume of skin treated, irradiation technique, energy of the irradiation beam used (photons, electrons), dose distribution, and some individual factors.23 Prospective studies for breast cancer irradiation revealed that semisupine position, large bra cup size, and skin complexion were significant adverse factors for acute skin toxicity.8,10,24 Although used as a basis for stratification in our study, we did not find any significant differences according to the skin types, even when comparing high Pathak scores of 5 to 6 with scores of 1 to 4 (data not shown). The BMI was a significant factor (P < .001) and had a more prognostic value than the bra size. Type of surgery was not a significant prognostic factor for skin toxicity in the entire series, but lumpectomy was strongly correlated with skin toxicity of grade 2 or more in patients previously given chemotherapy. In our experience, the use of a bolus was not an adverse prognostic factor.
We did not include the total dose in the multivariate model because this factor could be influenced directly by the acute skin toxicity occurrence. Indeed, we observed in our study that 72% of patients receiving
The role of previous chemotherapy in the occurrence of radiation-induced skin toxicity was unclear. In the multivariate analysis, previous chemotherapy significantly increased the prevalence of dermatitis of grade 2 or higher among women who had had a lumpectomy, with the exception of patients with a BMI In conclusion, calendula was statistically significantly more effective than trolamine in preventing acute dermatitis grade 2 or higher during adjuvant postoperative breast irradiation. The clinical relevance of this finding is emphasized by the significant improvement in self-assessed patient satisfaction with regard to pain and dermatitis. Calendula should be proposed as preventive treatment for patients undergoing postoperative irradiation for breast cancer.
The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
We thank Françoise Chirat for data management and for assistance with providing information and care to patients during the study, and Giovanna Gonnon for data management in the Biostatistics Unit. We also thank Elisabeth Heseltine for editing and for translating parts of this text into English.
Supported by a grant from the Department of Research and Development, Boiron Ltd, France. Role of the funding source: The sponsors of this study had no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, nor in the writing of the report or the decision to submit the article for publication. Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
1. Duncan W, MacDougall RH, Kerr GR, et al: Adverse effect of treatment gaps in the outcome of radiotherapy for laryngeal cancer. Radiother Oncol 41:203–207, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 2. Robertson C, Robertson AG, Hendry JH, et al: Similar decreases in local tumor control are calculated for treatment protraction and for interruptions in the radiotherapy of carcinoma of the larynx in four centers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:319–329, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 3. Roy I, Fortin A, Larochelle M: The impact of skin washing with water and soap during breast irradiation: A randomized study. Radiother Oncol 58:333–339, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 4. Bostrom A, Lindman H, Swartling C, et al: Potent corticosteroid cream (mometasone furoate) significantly reduces acute radiation dermatitis: Results from a double-blind, randomized study. Radiother Oncol 59:257–265, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 5. Schmuth M, Wimmer MA, Hofer S, et al: Topical corticosteroid therapy for acute radiation dermatitis: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Br J Dermatol 146:983–991, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 6. Liguori V, Guillemin C, Pesce GF, et al: Double-blind, randomized clinical study comparing hyaluronic acid cream to placebo in patients treated with radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 42:155–161, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 7. Maiche A, Isokangas OP, Grohn P: Skin protection by sucralfate cream during electron beam therapy. Acta Oncol 33:201–203, 1994[CrossRef][Medline] 8. Williams MS, Burk M, Loprinzi CL, et al: Phase III double-blind evaluation of an aloe vera gel as a prophylactic agent for radiation-induced skin toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36:345–349, 1996[Medline] 9. Fenig E, Brenner B, Katz A, et al: Topical Biafine and Lipiderm for the prevention of radiation dermatitis: A randomized prospective trial. Oncol Rep 8:305–309, 2001[Medline] 10. Fisher J, Scott C, Stevens R, et al: Randomized phase III study comparing best supportive care to Biafine as a prophylactic agent for radiation-induced skin toxicity for women undergoing breast irradiation: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 97–13. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:1307–1310, 2000[Medline] 11. Heggie S, Bryant GP, Tripcony L, et al: A phase III study on the efficacy of topical aloe vera gel on irradiated breast tissue. Cancer Nurs 25:442–451, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 12. Roy-Camille R: Biafine pour le traitement des plaies infectées et non infectées d'origine traumatique, in Clinical Trial, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France, 1988 13. Coulomb B, Friteau L, Dubertret L: Biafine applied on human epidermal wounds is chemotactic for macrophages and increases the IL-1/IL-6 ratio. Skin Pharmacol 10:281–287, 1997[Medline] 14. Szumacher E, Wighton A, Franssen E, et al: Phase II study assessing the effectiveness of Biafine cream as a prophylactic agent for radiation-induced acute skin toxicity to the breast in women undergoing radiotherapy with concomitant CMF chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:81–86, 2001[Medline] 15. Lievre M, Marichy J, Baux S, et al: Controlled study of three ointments for the local management of 2nd and 3rd degree burns. Clin Trials Metaanal 28:9–12, 1992 16. Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF: Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:1341–1346, 1995[CrossRef][Medline] 17. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, et al: When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain 61:277–284, 1995[CrossRef][Medline] 18. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ: Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 8:1153–1157, 2001[Medline] 19. Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE: Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 38:633–638, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 20. Pathak MA: Sunscreens and their use in the preventive treatment of sunlight-induced skin damage. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 13:739–750, 1987[Medline] 21. Pathak MA, Fanselow DL: Photobiology of melanin pigmentation: Dose/response of skin to sunlight and its contents. J Am Acad Dermatol 9:724–733, 1983[Medline]
22. Fitzpatrick TB: The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol 124:869–871, 1988 23. Tucker SL, Turesson I, Thames HD. Evidence for individual differences in the radiosensitivity of human skin. Eur J Cancer 28:1783–1791, 1992[CrossRef] 24. Fernando IN, Ford HT, Powles TJ, et al: Factors affecting acute skin toxicity in patients having breast irradiation after conservative surgery: A prospective study of treatment practice at the Royal Marsden Hospital. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 8:226–233, 1996 Submitted July 10, 2003; accepted January 28, 2004.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2004 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
2 test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. For quantitative measures, the Student's t test or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used. All of the P values are two sided. 
