Letters to the Editor
Radiation Dermatitis Often Misdiagnosed as Contact Dermatitis
Am Fam Physician. 2015 Sep 15;92(6):424-430.
Original article: Red Rash on the Back (Photo Quiz)
Issue date: April 15, 2015
Available online at: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2015/0415/p557.html
to the editor: We believe that the rash depicted in this Photo Quiz is more consistent with a diagnosis of radiation dermatitis than with irritant contact dermatitis as suggested by the authors.
A five-hour coronary stent procedure is usually associated with a significant dose of radiation. A typical threshold for radiation burns is more than 5 Gy (total body absorbed dose), although skin changes may occur with a dose of more than 2 Gy.1 Complex interventional procedures sometimes involve up to 10 Gy of radiation.
Exposure to a radiation dose exceeding the recommended threshold can lead to radiation dermatitis, diarrhea, and headache. Cutaneous radiation syndrome begins within hours of exposure and is associated with pruritus and erythema. A latent phase may then begin, which can last days to weeks. Symptoms may progress to include blistering, ulceration, and possible necrosis. In severe cases, involvement of subcutaneous tissue and fat requires skin grafts to maintain adequate tissue coverage.2
Radiation dermatitis is often misdiagnosed as contact dermatitis. The well-circumscribed rash described in this Photo Quiz is not caused by a grounding pad (which is not used in cardiac catheterization procedures); rather it is due to the source of radiation—the image intensifier in this case.
When a prolonged cardiac catheterization procedure is performed and the image intensifier is maintained in a constant radiographic projection, radiation dermatitis can occur.
Mild radiation dermatitis may be treated with topical emollients when desquamation is present, or with moderate-potency topical corticosteroids for pruritus. More severe radiation dermatitis may require protective dressings to control symptoms such as blisters and weeping, and to prevent secondary infection. High-grade radiation dermatitis warrants consultation with a radiation oncologist or dermatologist for possible tissue debridement.3 It is the responsibility of the interventional cardiologist to notify the primary care physician of any prolonged procedure involving significant radiation (more than 5 Gy) so that the condition can be recognized and treated in a timely manner.
Author disclosure: No relevant financials affiliations.
1. Slovut DP. Cutaneous radiation injury after complex coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(7):701–702.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emergency preparedness and response. Cutaneous radiation injury. http://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/criphysicianfactsheet.asp. Accessed April 29, 2015.
3. Wong RK, Bensadoun RJ, Boers-Doets CB, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of acute and late radiation reactions from the MASCC Skin Toxicity Study Group. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(10):2933–2948.
in reply: We appreciate the interesting alternative diagnosis presented by the authors of this letter. The key element of this Photo Quiz was identifying the best diagnosis from a preselected list; therefore, even if the authors are correct, the best answer to the question remains irritant contact dermatitis.
Clinical clues strongly support irritant contact dermatitis. The rash lacks two hallmarks of significant radiation dermatitis: pain and ulceration.1 In simple catheterization procedures, a Bovie with grounding pad might not be used. However, with pathology like this one, for which a percutaneous approach is expected to fail, patients are routinely prepped for an open bypass procedure (including placement of a grounding pad) at onset to avoid a delay during conversion. The dimensions of the rash offer further evidence. The grounding pad used measures 8.9 cm × 15.2 cm, whereas the half-value layer attenuator is 10 cm × 10 cm. The patient's rectangular rash is consistent with the shape of the grounding pad.
For refractory cases with an unclear diagnosis, biopsy can help differentiate radiation and irritant contact dermatitis. The former may be distinguished by characteristic atypical keratinocytes early on, and by atypical radiation fibroblasts with higher radiation doses.2 In this case, the clinical diagnosis did not warrant biopsy, and the patient responded to therapy for irritant contact dermatitis.
Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.
1. Hymes SR, Strom EA, Fife C. Radiation dermatitis: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment 2006. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(1):28–46.
2. Weedon D, Strutton G, Rubin AI. Weedon's Skin Pathology. 3rd ed. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2010:614–615.
Send letters to firstname.lastname@example.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.
Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.
This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.
Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact email@example.com for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions