Search

Patients often report a sense of smell during radiation therapy (RT), but the details of these events are not well understood. The purpose of the study was to evaluate events of smell during photon RT and proton beam therapy (PBT).The subjects were all adult patients (≥20 years old) treated with photon RT or PBT at two centers from January 2019 to August 2020, with the exclusion of those with communication difficulties or olfactory abnormality. The presence of smell, odor type, intensity (five levels), and time period was examined prospectively using a weekly checklist.A total of 649 courses were examined in 620 patients who received photon RT (n=415) or PBT (n=205). A smell during the procedure was sensed by 51 patients (8.2%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, nasal cavity dose (p=0.002), age (p0.001), and photon RT (p=0.018) were identified as significant factors associated with a sense of smell. Smell occurred in only 23/515 patients (4.5%) in whom the nasal cavity was not irradiated, but in 4/19 (21.1%) and 24/86 (27.9%) with nasal cavity maximum isodose lines of 10%-50% and 60%-100%, respectively. Patients who received photon RT sensed a smell (43/415; 10.4%) more frequently than those treated with PBT (8/205; 3.9%). Of the 51 patients who sensed a smell, 32 (63%) reported a burnt smell, eight (16%) a chemical smell, two (4%) a sour smell, and nine another smell (copier machine, sweet, garbage, etc.).The sense of a smell appears to be common during RT and this sensation is significantly associated with the nasal cavity dose, younger age, and photon RT.

Background This study was conducted to evaluate late toxicities in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients who received photon or proton therapy. Methodology A total of 106 AYA patients who received proton and photon therapy and were followed-up for more than two years were retrospectively evaluated. The median age of patients was 22 years (range, 15-29 years). A total of 47 patients were male and 59 were female. A total of 35 and 71 patients received photon and proton therapy, respectively. All but one patient received radiotherapy with curative intent. The target disease was benign and malignant in 28 and 78 patients, respectively. Results The median follow-up period in all patients was 62 months (range: 24-293 months). Grade 3 or higher toxicity was observed in 20 patients. There was one case of grade 5 toxicity (myelodysplastic syndrome), which was probably due to chemotherapy. No other secondary cancers were observed. Regarding life events, 15 and 88 patients were married and unmarried at the start of radiotherapy, respectively. Of the 88 unmarried patients, five were married after radiotherapy. Occupation and education were evaluated in 71 patients. Of the 71 patients, 33 were students, 21 were employed, and 16 were unemployed. Of the 33 students, eight were employed and 11 were at a higher educational grade after radiotherapy. Of the 21 employed patients, 17 had the same jobs and four had lost their jobs after radiotherapy. For the 16 unemployed patients, all remained unemployed. Conclusions This study is one of the largest studies to focus on life after radiation therapy among AYAs and suggests that cancer treatment has an influence on life events.