Radiation-induced skin injury in the head and neck region: pathogenesis, clinics, prevention, treatment considerations and proposal for management algorithm
Pazdrowski J., Gornowicz-Porowska J., Kaźmierska J., Krajka-Kuźniak V., Polanska A., Masternak M.
Narrative Review, published in Rep Pract Oncol Radiother (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Rep Pract Oncol Radiother (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39144266
- PMCID
- PMC11321788
- DOI
- 10.5603/rpor.100775
- Citations
- 14
Abstract (original English)
Worldwide increase of head and neck cancers ranks these malignancies among top causes of cancer in human population. Radiation induced skin injury (RISI) is one of the major side effects of radiotherapy (RT). Skin of the neck is exposed to radiation due to necessity of therapeutic or prophylactic (elective) irradiation of neck lymph nodes and target organs, including the larynx and hypopharynx. The location of the neck exposes these regions of the skin to various additional exposomes such as ultraviolet radiation (UVR), pollution and cigarette smoke. There are many controversies or inconsistencies regarding RISI, from molecular aspects and therapy to terminology. There is lack of high-quality and large-sample studies in both forms of RISI: acute (aRISI) and chronic (cRISI). Finally, no gold standards in the management of aRISI and cRISI have been established yet. In this article, the authors discuss the pathogenesis, clinical picture, prevention and clinical interventions and present a proposed treatment algorithm.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.