Role of Radiation


Radiation quality

Energy (kV)

D50a (mm)

Grenz rays (ultrasoft, supersoft, Bucky therapy)

10–20

0.2–1.0

Soft x-ray

20–100

1–20

Superficial x-ray (low voltage x-ray therapy)

60–150

7–10

Orthovoltage therapy (deep x-ray therapy, conventionalx-ray therapy)

150–400

50–80

Megavoltage therapy (betatron, particle, linear accelerators)

>1000

10–200


kV kilovolt

aD50 refers to the depth from the skin surface at which 50 % of the total radiation is absorbed



The original reports of Miescher and the subsequent reports using his technique involved very low energy x-ray teletherapy (10–20 kV, also known as Grenz rays). With Grenz ray therapy, the majority of the radiation dose is absorbed in the most superficial millimeter of skin, with little to no radiation absorbed beyond 2 mm. Soft or superficial x-rays (20–150 kV) are absorbed over 1–20 mm of skin and subcutaneous tissues. An example of this is presented in Fig. 12.1. Even higher energy x-rays (orthovoltage, 150–400 kV) deposit the majority of radiation dose over 50–80 mm of skin and subcutaneous tissues. The aforementioned forms of radiation are preferable for neoplasms originating in the skin, but they are not widely available because most radiation oncology departments use linear accelerators to produce megavoltage electrons and photons which intentionally spare the skin surface. Through specific manipulations, megavoltage electron radiation can deliver radiation to the skin surface, and unlike x-rays have an advantage of delivering radiation to a limited, finite range of skin and subcutaneous tissue, ranging from 10 to 200 mm deep to the skin surface. Examples of this are presented in Figs. 12.2 and 12.3.

A339579_1_En_12_Fig1_HTML.gif


Fig. 12.1
Definitive radiation therapy for lentigo maligna of the left cheek with soft/superficial x-rays to a total dose of 57.5 Gy in 23 fractions of 2.5 Gy. (a) before treatment; (b) during first week of treatment; (c) last day of treatment; (d) 2 weeks after completion; (e) 4 weeks after completion; (f) 12 weeks after completion


A339579_1_En_12_Fig2_HTML.gif


Fig. 12.2
Adjuvant radiation therapy for lentigo maligna melanoma of the left cheek with megavoltage electrons to a total dose of 32 Gy in 4 fractions of 8 Gy after excision of microinvasive component. (a) before treatment; (b) last day of treatment; (c) 6 months after completion


A339579_1_En_12_Fig3_HTML.gif


Fig. 12.3
Definitive radiation therapy for recurrent lentigo maligna of the left upper lip with megavoltage electrons to a total dose of 57.5 Gy in 23 fractions of 2.5 Gy after prior surgical excision. (a) before treatment; (b) 3 years after completion

Brachytherapy has been less often used and reported on, but should not be overlooked as a valuable component of the radiotherapeutic armamentarium for LM and LMM. The primary advantage of brachytherapy is the ability of this modality to conform to irregular skin surfaces (i.e., those that are not relatively flat), and deliver a uniform and homogenous dose of radiation across the area. A notable example of this is a case of extensive, unresectable LMM affecting the entire scalp of a patient. As the curved, large surface of the scalp could not be adequately targeted with a superficial teletherapy technique, investigators performed skin surface brachytherapy using catheters afterloaded with Ir-192, with a satisfactory result [11]. Other investigators used interstitial brachytherapy to treat 3 patients with LMM that were deemed inappropriate for surgery. With a median follow-up of 4 years, these patients had good control of the LMM, with no significant side effects [12]. Brachytherapy has not enjoyed a significant amount of usage in the treatment of LM and LMM, probably owing to the technical demands and resources required to perform this successfully. Moreover, custom skin surface brachytherapy techniques generally require access to radioisotopes, which are generally not at the disposal of dermatologists who collectively treat the vast majority of patients with LM and LMM.

Regardless of the specific treatment technique used, defining the target for radiotherapy is paramount to successful treatment. The grossly evident “tumor” or gross tumor volume, (GTV) is typically delineated as the pigmented lesion on the skin surface. In some instances, there is sharp demarcation between the pigmented lesion and the surrounding normal tissue, but this is not always the case. Adjunctive imaging techniques may help identify the target and include Wood’s lamp (ultraviolet light) which requires visualization in a dark room [13]. Conventional radiographic imaging (CT, MRI, PET) is unlikely to be informative given the superficial nature of LM and LMM, but other modalities such as reflectance confocal microscopy, high frequency ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography may be valuable [14]. Once the GTV has been identified and marked on the skin surface, one must determine the subclinical extent of disease, often referred to as the clinical target volume (CTV). A study of 1,120 patients with LM excised using variable margins indicated that 6–9 mm of normal appearing skin radially around the GTV, will yield a negative margin in 86–99 % of cases [15]. Extrapolation of this suggests that a CTV of 6–9 mm radial margin is appropriate. While the depth of invasion of LM and LMM is expected to be limited, however, perifollicular extension is common, and some have reported this extending to 3–5 mm from the surface of the epidermis. Finally, to account for movement, setup uncertainty, and other factors, a planning target volume (PTV) must be generated, which will depend on the specific parameters of the treatment setup. Once the PTV has been created, determination of the appropriate radiation application parameters (including shielding) is carried out. Taking all of this into account, investigators have employed margins of 5–20 mm from the edge of the pigmented skin lesion to the edge of the treatment field, although the specific parameters of the treatment technique will ultimately dictate the margin width necessary.



Advantages and Disadvantages


The primary advantage of radiotherapy for LM and LMM is that cutaneous and subcutaneous tissue is preserved during treatment. In some instances, tissue preservation is an important goal in order to maintain form and function. For example, resection of LM or LMM on or near the eyelid could lead to tissue defects compromising the ability to close the eyelid, and this can result in secondary ophthalmic complications. Likewise, a large scar or graft from reconstruction on the face may be cosmetically unacceptable to some patients.

The primary disadvantage of radiotherapy for LM and LMM is that there are no pathologic assurances of the extent of disease (depth of invasion), or whether the LM or LMM was completely eradicated during treatment. The presence of invasive melanoma, and the depth of invasion, is a primary prognostic determinant to estimating the probability of metastasis and death from melanoma. These cannot be fully assessed through partial sampling of LM and LMM, and therefore introduce uncertainty into the anticipated natural history of the disease. Furthermore, after treatment of LM and LMM with radiotherapy, one cannot be assured about the presence of residual and viable melanoma cells until recurrence occurs. This uncertainty may prove vexing for both the clinician and the patient.


Patient Selection


Guidelines on the use of radiotherapy for LM and LMM from around the world have been published, with relatively consistent themes. Generally, they support the use of radiotherapy in situations when surgery is contraindicated, or when surgery does not remove all of the LM or LMM. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network indicates, “For selected patients with positive margins after optimal surgery, consider topical imiquimod (for patients with melanoma in situ) or RT [radiation therapy],” and that “Imiquimod and/or RT [radiation therapy] can be considered as non-standard options in highly selected cases” [16]. In the United Kingdom, it has been noted that “for some particular clinical situations, treatment by other methods such as radiotherapy, or observation only, may be appropriate” [17]. Guidelines from Brazil indicate that radiation is “justified in cases where surgery can cause great aesthetic/functional damage or in patients unable to undergo surgery” [18]. In China, “if a histologically negative margin cannot be achieved by surgery alone, local application of imiquimod or radiotherapy may be considered (Category 2B).” [19]. The Spanish Society for Medical Oncology considers radiation therapy “in case of inadequate resection margin of lentigo maligna” [20]. The European Society of Medical Oncology also indicated that “radiotherapy for local tumor control should be considered in cases of inadequate resection margins of lentigo maligna melanoma” [21]. The German Dermatological Society indicates that “in lentigo maligna melanomas not suitable for surgical therapy due to size, location, and/or age of the patient, primary radiotherapy should be employed. Good tumor control rates can be achieved with this.” [22]. Finally, the American Academy of Dermatology indicated that “Primary radiation therapy for lentigo maligna with or without prior excision of nodular component of lentigo maligna melanoma may be considered when complete surgical excision is not a realistic option” [23].

Radiotherapy with curative intent may be considered in two general circumstances. The first as the sole or definitive therapy used for treatment of LM or LMM. This may be prior to any other treatment, as upfront therapy, or after another modality has failed, as a salvage therapy. The alternative to definitive radiotherapy is adjuvant radiotherapy. This type of treatment is used to reduce the risk of recurrence after an alternative treatment has been used as the definitive therapy, typically surgery. Radiotherapy may be selected as an adjuvant to surgery in case of positive margins, or when the risk of recurrence is estimated to be high. Radiotherapy can also be used with palliative intent, although this situation would be unusual in LM and LMM.

There are few absolute contraindications to radiotherapy for LM and LMM. Patients with active collagen vascular or autoimmune disease including skin manifestations, or with genetic syndromes rendering hypersensitive to radiotherapy are probably not ideal candidates for radiotherapy. Typically skin radiotherapy is reserved for older patients, because of the risks of late side effects. Prior radiotherapy to the area of LM and LMM is also a relative contraindication, given concerns about cumulative toxicity of radiotherapy, although a number of studies have reported good outcomes after reirradiation for recurrent LM and LMM at the edge of prior radiotherapy fields. In the past, radiation was used to treat non-malignant skin conditions such as acne; however this practice is no longer continued presently. Prior radiotherapy for non-malignant skin conditions which are presumed to entail a low dose of radiation, are not necessarily a contraindication for radiotherapy.


Outcomes



Definitive Therapy


As noted in Table 12.2, a broad range of outcomes of definitive radiotherapy have been reported from around the world over the last seven decades [4, 5, 710, 12, 2431]. These data suggest local recurrence occurs after radiotherapy for LM and LMM in about 10 % of patients, with regional and distant metastatic recurrence occurring in 1 %. A limitation of these data is the limited follow-up, which ranges from a median of 1.3–9.3 years. This is likely a reflection of the elderly patient population preferentially selected for radiotherapy, and the limited ability of these patients to follow-up over the long term [8]. Several other trends in the published literature are noteworthy.


Table 12.2
Studies of definitive radiation therapy for lentigo maligna and lentigo maligna melanoma


























































































































Study author

Study period

Diagnosis,patients (n =)

Recurrence, local(n =, [crude rate])

Recurrence, nodal(n =, [crude rate])

Recurrence, distant(n =, [crude rate])

Follow-up (years)

Radiation quality

Arma-Szlachcic

1941–1965

LM, 61

2 [3.3 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Most ≥5

Grenz

LMM, 18

0 [0 %]

5 [27.8 %]

NR

Most ≥5

Soft/Superficial

Panizzon

1941–1988

LM, 129

2 [1.6 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Mean 9.3

Grenz

LMM, 27

2 [7.4 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Mean 9.3

Soft

Farshad

1950–2000

LM, 93

5 [5.4 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Mean 8

Grenz

LMM, 54

0 [0 %]

2 [3.7 %]

0 [0 %]

Mean 8

Soft

Braun-Falco

1955–1970

LM, 68

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Mean 3

Grenz

De Groot

1958–1968

LM, 21

1 [4.8 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Median 3

Grenz

Pitman

1955–1977

LM, 8

3 [37.5 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Median 3.5

Grenz

LMM, 5

4 [80 %]

2 [40 %]

0 [0 %]

Median 5

Grenz

Harwood

1958–1982

LM, 23

2 [8.7 %]

0 [0 %]

0 [0 %]

Median 2.2

Superficial

LMM, 28

2 [7.1 %]

1 [3.6 %]

1 [3.6 %]

Median 2

Superficial/Orthovoltage

Tsang

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jul 13, 2017 | Posted by in Dermatology | Comments Off on Role of Radiation

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access