Search

Many European cropped soils have high soil test P (STP) values in the top soil because of P accumulation over many years of fertilizer application. This should allow to save P fertilizer applications for some years without STP values decreasing to a level that might negatively impact crop yield. However, the way STP develops under omitted P fertilizer application is not well understood. We examined STP development under omitted P fertilizer application for timeframes between 7 and 46 years on 96 unfertilized treatments (P0 treatments) of 43 European long-term P field experiments, using five different STP methods. For comparability, values obtained by different STP methods were converted to Olsen-P concentrations. We fitted exponential decay curves to Olsen-P data of each P0 treatment defined by initial Olsen-P values (Olsen-Pi), rates of decrease (k) and asymptotes (A), reflecting minimum obtainable STP. Subsequently, we analysed whether the variables most commonly recorded in experiments, are sufficient to explain the variation in model parameters, these variables being P export, clay content, Corg and pH as well as average annual temperature and precipitation. We found that out of our predictor variables, soil clay content, precipitation and temperature were showing the most prominent effects on the parameters Olsen-Pi, A or k. However, the amount of variation explained by the considered variables was too low to potentially facilitate a prediction of STP decrease, and various P0 treatments showed no clear Olsen-P decrease or unexpectedly high asymptotes. This hints at a strong influence of the P sorption capacity of the soil with often high potential for replenishment from less available P pools. In connection with P introduction from the subsoil or possibly from surrounding plots, the extension of timeframes of omitted P fertilizer application without reaching critical STP values for crop production, might be explainable. Corresponding effects could not be analys

Background and Purpose To investigate the effect of topical non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP), a volatile mix generated out of ambient air, on prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) during and after whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Materials and Methods Lateral and medial breast halves were randomised within each patient to receive either 120 s of NIPP or sham treatment daily during WBI. Standard skin care with urea lotion was applied to the whole breast. Blinded acute skin toxicity was assessed weekly for each breast half separately and included clinician-(CTCAE) and patient-reported (modified RISRAS), and objective (spectrophotometry) assessments. As an additional external control, a comparable standard of care (SoC) patient collective from a previous prospective trial was used. Results Sixty-four patients were included. There were no significant differences between breast halves. Post-hoc comparison with a similar SoC control collective revealed OR = 0.28 (95% CI 0.11–0.76; p = 0.014) for grade ≥ 2 RD upon WBI completion, along with less hyperpigmentation (p < 0.001), oedema (p = 0.020), dry (p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (p = 0.017), pain, itching, and burning (p < 0.001 for each). Tolerability of NIPP was excellent and side effects were not observed. Conclusion Even though there were no differences between intrapatient-randomised breast halves, the overall incidence and severity of acute radiation-induced skin toxicity were considerably lower when compared to a prospectively collected SoC cohort. Our data suggest the potential benefit of NIPP in RD prevention. A randomised trial with a physical control group is warranted to confirm these promising results (DRKS00026225).

Purpose Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common side effect of adjuvant whole-breast or chest wall irradiation, majorly impacting quality of life in numerous patients. The use of barrier films (polyurethane dressings such as Hydrofilm® and Mepitel® film remaining on the skin for the duration of the radiation treatment) has been investigated as a prophylactic measure in several prospective trials. Here, we critically appraise the available evidence behind preventive barrier film application in the context of breast cancer treatment. Methods International literature was reviewed and high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. Results The results of 5 RCTs (663 patients; >90% Caucasian) were analysed. Overall, barrier films lead to improved clinician- and patient-reported outcomes: fewer grade ≥2 RD (11% vs. 42%; OR = 0.16; p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (2% vs. 16%; OR = 0.12; p = 0.006), as well as less patient-reported pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] −0.51; p < 0.001), itching (SMD −0.52; p = 0.001), burning (SMD −0.41; p = 0.011), and limitations in daily activities (SMD −0.20; p = 0.007). Furthermore, barrier films have a high acceptance rate among patients, as well as a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Possible side effects due to its application are mild and mostly self-limiting. Overall, there was a lack of information on the radiation treatment techniques used. Conclusion The evidence presented in this meta-analysis suggests that barrier films are an excellent tool in the prevention of RD among Caucasian patients receiving whole-breast or chest wall irradiation. Its use should therefore be considered routinely in these patients.