The effect of Mepitel Film on acute radiation-induced skin reactions in head and neck cancer patients: a feasibility study

Mepitel® film versus standard care for the prevention of skin toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy: A randomized controlled trial

Background & purpose

Radiotherapy plays a key role in breast cancer treatment however, radiation-induced dermatitis can impact on treatment delivery and patient quality of life.The primary outcome was to compare Mepitel® Film versus standard treatment in preventing radiotherapy skin toxicity onset.

Methods

A multicentre randomised controlled phase III study compared standard treatment (aqueous-urea cream - Excipial U hydrolotion applied at the beginning of radiotherapy and antiseptic cream - Flammazine or Ialugen Plus applied at the onset of moist desquamation) versus Mepitel® Film in patients with breast cancer undergoing post-operative radiotherapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of moist desquamation (RTOG score ≥ 2) in the experimental and control groups.

Results

During the study (2016-2020), 161 patients were randomized, 154 (95.7 %) were evaluable. Skin toxicity Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) score ≥ 2 was observed in 9.5 % and 13.9 % of experimental and control groups respectively (Relative Risk = 0.68, 95 %CI 0.28-1.66; p = 0.393). RTOG scores > 0 were 90.5 % and 94.9 % in experimental and control groups respectively (Relative Risk = 0.95, 95 %CI 0.87-1.04; p = 0.294).Multivariable analysis, controlled for age, diabetes, BMI and smoking exposure, showed a risk reduction of RTOG > 0 of 38 % (HR = 0.62 95 %CI 0.49-0.96, p = 0.028), and a risk reduction of RTOG > 1 of 33 % (HR = 0.67 95 %CI 0.26-1.76, p = 0.420) in the experimental group.The median time to recovery from RTOG grade > 0 toxicity was 17 and 32 days for experimental and control groups, respectively (p = 0.027). At multivariable analysis, time to recovery was 38 % faster in the experimental group (HR = 1.38 95 %CI (0.99-1.93) p = 0.059).

Conclusions

Although the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in RTOG > 2 skin toxicity, there was evidence of a reduction in the rate of skin toxicity and an improvement in time to recovery. The device was well tolerated by patients.

Bibliometric analysis and visualization of research trends in radiation dermatitis in the past twenty years

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the most influential countries/regions, institutions, journals, authors, keywords, and trends in the study of the mechanism and treatments of radiation dermatitis (RD) from 2003 to 2023 using bibliometric analysis.

METHODS

The literature associated with RD was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection, only articles and reviews in English were included. Individual articles were reviewed to identify the authorship, published journal, journal impact factor, institution and country of origin, and year of publication.

RESULTS

A total of 6,453 authors from 1,605 institutions in 64 countries/regions published 1,062 RD-related literature. The United States was the most productive country. The Unicancer in France was the institution that published the majority of articles on RD. Edward Chow was the most productive author and Supportive Care in Cancer contributed the most articles. Advanced head and neck cancer is the most common cause of RD. The mechanism research mainly focused on nitric oxide, oxidative stress, and apoptosis in recent years, and Mepitel film, Mepilex Lite, and PBMT were the main preventive and therapeutic measures for RD.

CONCLUSION

Our bibliometric studies provide a thorough overview of RD and valuable insights and ideas for scholars in this discipline.

Mepitel Film Versus StrataXRT in Managing Radiation Dermatitis in an Intra-Patient Controlled Clinical Trial of 80 Postmastectomy Patients

BACKGROUND

Mepitel film decreases the severity of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients, but its application is resource-intensive. Many departments therefore use StrataXRT, a gel that patients apply themselves. We compared the protective effects of Mepitel film and StrataXRT on radiation dermatitis during and immediately after radiation therapy.

METHODS

This phase III multicentre randomised intra-patient-controlled clinical trial recruited breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy following mastectomy in three New Zealand Hospitals. Lateral and medial aspects of the chest wall were randomised to either Mepitel film or StrataXRT. Overall skin reaction severity was measured using RISRAS and RTOG once a week during treatment and for 4 weeks after treatment completion. The primary outcome was moist desquamation (with a non-inferiority margin of 7.5%); secondary outcomes were overall skin reaction severity, patient tolerability, satisfaction and cost.

RESULTS

Between June 2021 and May 2024, 93 patients were recruited, and 80 patients completed the trial. The absolute difference in moist desquamation rates was 6% lower under Mepitel film (p = 0.413, 95% CI -5%, 18%). Overall skin reaction severity was significantly lower for Mepitel film (Researcher RISRAS: p = 0.022; RTOG: p = 0.011). Mepitel film was cheaper to apply but was less well tolerated, with poor skin adherence being an issue for many patients.

CONCLUSION

The study did not show non-inferiority for StrataXRT; overall skin reaction severity and costs were significantly lower under Mepitel film; however, StrataXRT was better tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12621000124831.

StrataXRT and Mepitel Film for Preventing Postmastectomy Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer: An Intrapatient Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) is a notable challenge for patients with breast cancer undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy (RT). This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and user experience of StrataXRT versus Mepitel Film for ARD prevention.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This multicenter, noninferiority trial involved intrapatient randomization of 44 patients with histologically confirmed breast carcinoma who had undergone postmastectomy RT across 4 Australian hospitals from January 1 to December 31, 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to receive Mepitel Film and StrataXRT on alternate halves of the irradiated chest wall. Mepitel Film was applied by nurses and replaced every 1 to 2 weeks or as necessary, ensuring continuous coverage throughout RT. Conversely, patients self-applied StrataXRT daily to the opposite half, with adherence details recorded in patient diaries. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the time-weighted average (TWA) grade of ARD within designated rectangles in each half over 10 weeks from the commencement of RT.

RESULTS

Forty patients were analyzed per-protocol. Measurements using thermoluminescent dosimeters showed no significant dose differences between medial and lateral rectangles. StrataXRT was inferior to Mepitel Film in the primary outcome, with a mean difference in TWA grade of 0.19 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.26; P < .001). Secondary outcomes-mean difference in TWA grade in chest wall halves, worst ARD grade, and incidence of moist desquamation-showed noninferiority between treatments. Patient preferences were closely matched, with 37.5% favoring StrataXRT and 40% Mepitel Film. StrataXRT caused itching in 1 patient and Mepitel Film in 3, leading to 1 removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Although StrataXRT did not meet the noninferiority threshold in the primary outcome and is considered inferior, its ease of application and patient acceptance suggest that it may still be offered for ARD prevention in postmastectomy RT when Mepitel Film is not a practical option. Open discussion with patients and caregivers is recommended to determine the most appropriate skin protection agent, considering both efficacy and practicality.

Photobiomodulation therapy for mitigating severity of radiodermatitis in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Radiodermatitis (RD) is an adverse effect of radiation therapy. RD can negatively impact quality of life and can also hinder treatment in cancer patients. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has the potential to treat RD at the cellular level, and it is more promising compared to other therapy alternatives. This review aims to examine the effectiveness of PBMT for the treatment and management of RD in cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy.

METHODS

The methodology followed for the review was based on the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the extensions by Levac et al. This involved a literature search in Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane without any time limit, for original articles on the basis of the inclusion criteria, i.e., studies focusing on the effectiveness of PBMT on RD in cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy as an anticancer treatment. The review has been reported on the basis of the PRISMA-ScR checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were reviewed, of which only 2 (14.28%) studies reported no significant effect of PBMT on RD; the remaining studies reported positive outcomes (85.71%) with no adverse effects. Among studies with positive outcomes, PBMT has been shown to be beneficial in reducing the severity of RD. Furthermore, PBMT application has been studied as a preventive measure (35.71%), treatment and management (50%), and for both the prevention and cure of RD (14.29%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, PBMT can be considered a reliable and effective treatment modality for reducing the severity of RD. However detailed studies related to the long-term effects of PBMT, its effect on pain intensity and quality of life (QoL) will aid in better assessment of the technique. More clinical trials with a broader sample size could also aid in fine-tuning the efficacy of PBMT treatment modalities.

Mepitel film for the prevention of radiation dermatitis: A comprehensive review of its efficacy, side effects, physics measurements, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes

Objective

This review aimed to summarize the benefits, side effects, physics measurements, and patient- and clinician-reported outcomes of Mepitel film (MF) in preventing radiation dermatitis (RD) for cancer patients.

Methods

The online database PubMed was searched from inception to April 15, 2024 with the search terms "Mepitel film" or "Mepitel." Articles of any study design evaluating MF for the prevention of RD were included. Non-human studies were excluded.

Results

The database search identified 119 articles and 13 of them were included in this review. Across these studies, MF was found to be beneficial in reducing RD and improved patient- and clinician-reported outcomes in breast and head and neck cancers. Side effects of MF included itchiness, acne, allergic reaction, tightness, discomfort, and poor film adherence, but patient dropouts were uncommon. MF did not cause a bolus effect or increased skin dose in physics measurements.

Conclusions

MF is a safe and effective intervention for preventing acute RD. It should be recommended in breast cancer patients where the data is more robust. Further research is needed to evaluate MF's efficacy on patients with different skin tones, its cost-effectiveness, and identifying patients who most benefit from MF relative to other effective interventions.

The impact of a prophylactic skin dressing on surface-guided patient positioning in chest wall Radiation Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) has emerged as a powerful tool to improve patient setup accuracy in radiation therapy (RT). Combined with the goal of increasing RT accuracy is an ongoing effort to decrease RT side effects. The application of a prophylactic skin dressing to the treatment site is a well-documented method of reducing skin-related side effects from RT. This paper aims to investigate whether the application of Mepitel, a prophylactic skin dressing, has an impact on the accuracy of surface-guided patient setups in chest wall RT.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of daily image-guided Online Corrections (OLCs) from patients undergoing chest wall irradiation with SGRT was performed. Translational (superior-inferior, lateral, and anterior-posterior) OLC magnitude and direction were compared between patients treated with Mepitel applied and those treated without. Systematic and random errors were calculated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

OLCs from 275 fractions were analysed. Mean OLCs were larger for patients with Mepitel applied in the superior_inferior axis (0.34 vs. 0.22 cm, P = 0.049) and for the combined translational vector (0.54 vs. 0.43 cm, P = 0.043). Combined translational systematic error was slightly larger for patients with Mepitel applied (0.15 vs. 0.09 cm).

CONCLUSION

Mepitel can impact the accuracy of SGRT patient-positioning in chest wall RT. The variation however is small and unlikely to have any clinical impact if SGRT is coupled with image guidance and appropriate PTV margins. Further investigation is required to assess the effect of Mepitel on SGRT accuracy in other treatment sites, as well as any potential dosimetric impacts.

The effect of various interventions on the prevention of radiation dermatitis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

High doses of radiation, while effective at destroying tumor tissues, also result in radiation dermatitis (RD) at irradiated sites, which is one of the most common complications in cancer radiotherapy. Currently, no standardized protocols for the prevention and treatment of RD have been established in clinical practices, and severe RD can compromise treatment efficacy and reduce patients' quality of life. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the effectiveness of various interventions in preventing RD in patients.

METHODS

As of June 2023, four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were searched, with a total of 19 interventions obtained for comparative analysis of their effectiveness in preventing RD. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was employed to screen literature, extract data, and appraise the quality of the studies by two researchers. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted utilizing StataSE 15 and R 4.2.3.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies involving 4307 patients were included in this analysis. From the 33 studies, 19 interventions, encompassing Barrier Films and Dressings (BFD), Boron_Gel, Best supportive care, Corticosteroids_cream, Doxepin_cream, Eau Thermale Avèn_gel, Epidermal Growth Factor_cream, Hyaluronan_cream, Medicinal_Plants, Mineral_Oil, Olive oil and calcium hydroxide (OOCH), Photobiomodulation therapy, Recove_cream, Silicone_gel, Silver sulfadiazine (SSD), Timolol_Gel, Trolamine, VitD_Gel, and VitE_Gel, were retrieved and compared. The NMA results indicated that Hyaluronan_cream (SUCRA: 94.9%) was highly effective in preventing Grade 0/1 RD. Meanwhile, OOCH (SUCRA: 95.7%) demonstrated the most prominent effect in preventing ≥ Grade 2 RD.

CONCLUSION

The study reveals that Hyaluronan_cream and OOCH are two promising treatments for the prevention of RD in patients undergoing radiotherapy. Future research might focus on validating the efficacy of these two therapies with large sample sizes and on identifying an optimal intervention strategy.

Comparison of the efficacy among different interventions for radiodermatitis: A Bayesian network meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a prevalent and difficult-to-manage consequence of radiation therapy (RT). A variety of interventions have been proven effective in preventing and treating RD. However, the optimal approach remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) conducted a comparison and ranking of the effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the interventions currently utilized in RD.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on the prevention and treatment of RD. The primary outcome measures included the incidence of grade≥2 RD (i.e., percentage of moist desquamation) and RD score. The secondary outcome measures encompassed patients' subjective assessment scores of pains, itching and burning sensations.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis encompassed 42 studies and 4884 participants. Regarding the primary outcomes, photobiomodulation treatment (PBMT) ranked first in surface under curve cumulative ranking area (SUCRA:0.92) for reducing the incidence of grade≥2 RD. It demonstrated a significant difference when compared to Trolamine (OR 0.18,95%CrI 0.09-0.33) and Xonrid® (OR 0.28,95%CrI 0.12-0.66). Mepitelfilm (SUCRA: 0.98) achieved the highest rank in reducing the RD score, demonstrating superiority over StrataXRT® (MD -0.89, 95% CrI -1.49, -0.29). Henna (SUCRA: 0.89) demonstrated the highest effectiveness in providing pain relief, with a significant difference compared to Hydrofilm (MD -0.44, 95% CrI -0.84, -0.04) and Mepitelfilm (MD -0.55, 95% CrI -0.91, -0.19). Hydrofilm (SUCRA: 0.84) exhibited the fewest itching sensations, demonstrating superiority over Mepitelfilm (MD -0.50, 95% CrI -0.84, -0.17). No statistically significant difference was observed among various interventions in the assessment of burning sensations.

CONCLUSION

PBMT and Mepitelfilm demonstrated better efficacy in reducing the incidence of grade≥2 RD and RD score, respectively. In terms of PROs, Henna and Hydrofilm had fewer complaints in pain and itching sensations, respectively. However, studies with larger sample size on different interventions are warranted in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42023428598.

Decrease of radiation-induced skin reactions in breast cancer patients by preventive application of film dressings-a systematic review

PURPOSE

Radiation-induced skin reactions remain one of the most frequent side effects of adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer, which is the most common global malignancy. In individual cases, we observed a decrease in radiation dermatitis under film dressings used for skin marking purposes. Therefore, we decided to revise the available evidence regarding the prophylactic use of film dressings to reduce radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

On 20 March 2023, we conducted a systematic review of literature for randomized controlled trials published in the English, German, French, or Spanish language, available in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Of 82 publications, 9 full texts were assessed and 6 randomized controlled trials were included in the final synthesis. Two trials analyzed the application of polyurethane film (Hydrofilm, Paul Hartmann AG, Heidenheim, Germany), the other four of silicone-based polyurethane film (Mepitel film, Molnlycke Health Care Limited, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom). The evaluation scales Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS) were used for assessment. All six trials, with a total of 788 patients yielding data for analysis, demonstrate a significant decrease in radiation-induced skin reactions by use of the film (mainly p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates a significant decrease in radiation-induced skin reactions by prophylactically applied film dressings in breast cancer patients. Consequent preventive use of film dressings might systematically reduce acute radiation-induced skin reactions in these patients.

Reporting of Participant Demographics in Clinical Trials Published in General Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVES

The reporting of research participant demographics provides insights into study generalizability. Our study aimed to determine the frequency at which participant age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) are reported and used for subgroup analyses in radiology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their secondary analyses; as well as the study characteristics associated with, and the classification systems used for demographics reporting.

METHODS

RCTs and their secondary analyses published in 8 leading radiology journals between 2013 and 2021 were included. Associations between study characteristics and demographic reporting were tested with the chi-square goodness of fit test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for impact factor, and logistic regression for publication year.

RESULTS

Among 432 included articles, 89.4% (386) reported age, 90.3% (390) sex/gender, 5.6% (24) race/ethnicity, and 3.0% (13) SES. Among articles that reported these demographics and were not specific to a subgroup, results were analyzed by age in 14.2% (55/386), sex/gender in 19.4% (66/340), race/ethnicity in 13.6% (3/22), and SES in 46.2% (6/13). Journal, impact factor, and last author continent were predictors of race/ethnicity and SES reporting. Funding was associated with race/ethnicity reporting. No study reported sex and gender separately, or documented transgender, nonbinary gender spectrum or intersex participants. A single category for race/ethnicity was used in 37.5% (9/24) of studies, consisting of either "White" or "Caucasian."

CONCLUSION

The reporting of participant demographics in radiology trials is variable and not always representative of the population diversity. Editorial guidelines on the reporting and analysis of participant demographics could help standardize practices.

Perceptions of healthcare professionals on the use of Mepitel Film for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials support Mepitel Film (MF) as a prophylactic treatment for radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients undergoing breast radiotherapy. Although several studies have canvassed the opinion of patients on using MF, no such studies have been done to investigate the perception of healthcare professionals (HCPs). The objective of this study was therefore to investigate the perceptions of HCPs on MF as a treatment option for RD.

METHODS

Anonymized responses to a web-based survey sent to HCPs at a single institution managing patients using MF during breast radiotherapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 28 HCPs contacted, 22 completed the survey, including 6 radiation oncologists (ROs), 11 radiation therapists (RTTs), and 5 nurses. Most HCPs reported MF was better at preventing severe RD than the standard of care and improved radiation-induced skin reactions (n = 20/22, 91%, and n = 19/22, 86%, respectively). MF was recommended for mastectomy patients without reconstruction (n = 15/21, 71%). The majority of HCPs believed that patients' families could be trained to apply and remove MF (n = 19/22, 86%). Many HCPs perceived that implementation of MF would be difficult in terms of maintaining patient flow and wide-scale implementation within their institution (n = 11/22, 50%, and n = 10/22, 46%, respectively). Most HCPs perceived that fewer than 50% of their patients could afford MF if priced at $100 CAD (n = 15/20, 75%).

CONCLUSION

These findings provide insights into the possibility of MF to be incorporated into standard practice of care for RD. Although most HCPs were satisfied with MF as a prophylactic treatment for RD, there are concerns about its resource-intensive operationalization and financial accessibility to patients. Future research should focus on ways to improve HCP experience with MF and to improve its implementation into clinical settings as standard of care.

StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of radiation dermatitis: a critical review

PURPOSE

The primary objective is to systematically review primary studies, such as randomized control trials (RCTs), feasibility, exploratory, and case studies; and the secondary objective is to evaluate all secondary articles, such as reviews, guidelines, and editorials, relevant to the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and/or management of radiation dermatitis (RD) in cancer patients.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted up to February 26, 2023, for articles investigating the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of RD, in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar. The keywords "StrataXRT", "dermatitis", "radiotherapy", and "radiation" were used to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles from 2018 to 2022 were identified to fulfill the inclusion criteria of this review, of which nine are primary studies and 18 are secondary papers. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the current literature studying the effects of StrataXRT, making it difficult to make cross-trial comparisons. There is a suggestion of the efficacy of StrataXRT in the prevention and treatment of RD.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review recommend further adequately powered RCTs with robust methodology including patient and clinician assessments to determine the efficacy of StrataXRT in preventing and treating RD. This is essential to improve the quality of life of patients and identify which groups of patients would benefit most from StrataXRT.

Barrier films for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

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.

Mepitel Film for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of Mepitel Film in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) across randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched on 5 March 2023 to identify relevant RCTs. RD assessment tools and outcomes were compared across studies. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated based on random-effects analysis using RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

Three RCTs conducted between 2018 and 2020 were included. Mepitel Film decreased RD severity when compared to Sorbolene or Biafine but not when compared to mometasone. A per-protocol analysis of two of the trials revealed that, overall, Mepitel Film significantly reduced the incidence of grade 2-3 RD (odds ratio (OR), 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.65; p = 0.005) and moist desquamation (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.46; p < 0.0001) and decreased average patient, researcher, and combined components of the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (the standardized mean difference (SMD) for patient ratings, - 2.56; 95% CI, - 3.15 to - 1.96, p < 0.00001; SMD for researcher ratings, - 3.47; 95% CI, - 6.63 to - 0.31, p = 0.03; SMD for combined scores, - 3.68; 95% CI, - 6.43 to - 0.92, p = 0.009). Noted issues with Mepitel Film included itchiness and poor adherence.

CONCLUSION

While there were discrepancies across studies, Mepitel Film demonstrated a decrease in the incidence of grade 2-3 RD and moist desquamation. These findings emphasize the need for further examining Mepitel Film's efficacy across diverse patient groups and the importance of standardizing RD severity assessment methodologies and control arms.

Mepitel film for the prevention and treatment of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mepitel film in preventing or treating acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with breast cancer in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Embase, APA PsychInfo, Journals@Ovid Full Text, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Trials were searched until December 12, 2022, to identify RCTs on the use of Mepitel film for preventing or treating acute RD from breast cancer radiotherapy. Per-protocol analysis was used to compare outcomes, calculate pooled effect sizes, odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and to create forest plots using random effects analysis in RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

Three RCTs were included in this review. Mepitel film significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3 RD (OR 0.15 95% CI 0.06, 0.37, p<0.0001) and grade 2 or 3 RD (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.04, 0.65, p=0.01) as scored on either the CTCAE or the RTOG scale. Additionally, Mepitel film significantly reduced RISRAS mean scores assessed by patients and combined researcher and patient (standardized mean difference (SMD) -7.59, 95% CI -14.42, -0.76, p=0.03; SMD -15.36, 95% CI -30.01, -0.71 p=0.04) but not the researcher component of the assessment tool (SMD -17.55, 95% CI -36.94, 1.84, p=0.08).

CONCLUSION

Mepitel film reduced the incidence of acute RD and improved patient-reported outcomes with minimal side effects, the main one being itchiness. Future research should assess the feasibility of Mepitel film with respect to specific patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life issues associated with its use.

Prophylactic Use of Mepitel® Film to Prevent Radiation-Induced Moist Desquamation in Cancer Patients

Cancer patients had limited treatment options for decades, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, alone or combined. However, there have been substantial improvements in recent years with the introduction of stem cell therapy, hormone therapy, anti-angiogenic treatments, immunotherapy, dendritic cell-based targeted therapy, ablation therapy, nanoparticles, natural antioxidants, radionics, chemodynamic therapy, sonodynamic therapy, and ferroptosis-based therapy. Radiation therapy, or radiotherapy, is a cancer treatment that employs high doses of radiation to eliminate cancer cells and shrink tumors. This treatment is effective as a primary, adjuvant, or palliative therapy. It is an essential, efficient, cost-effective intervention crucial for providing proper palliative oncology care. Although cancer treatment modalities such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy have advanced, they still risk harming the skin and surrounding healthy tissue. Radiotherapy may induce clinical toxicity leading to chronic or acute radiation dermatitis, depending on the toxicity caused by the therapy. Radiation dermatitis, whether in its chronic or acute form, can cause skin shedding that may result in the formation of wounds. Such shedding can also lead to non-healing ulcers and radionecrosis. Mepitel® film helps control radiation-induced moist desquamation in cancer patients. Clinical trials on the prophylactic use of Mepitel film on radiation-induced moist desquamation did not show similarities among patients from various countries; however, the film-based method is more beneficial than other methods. This review examines the various types of dressings utilized in managing radiation-induced dermatitis to enhance wound healing effectiveness while avoiding harm to newly developing tissues. Additionally, this review compares the effectiveness of using Mepitel film for treating radiation-induced moist desquamation to other methods.

MASCC clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis: part 1) systematic review

Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) commonly develops in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and is often characterized by erythema, desquamation, and pain. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the current evidence on interventions for the prevention and management of ARD. Databases were searched from 1946 to September 2020 to identify all original studies that evaluated an intervention for the prevention or management of ARD, with an updated search conducted in January 2023. A total of 235 original studies were included in this review, including 149 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Most interventions could not be recommended due to a low quality of evidence, lack of supporting evidence, or conflicting findings across multiple trials. Photobiomodulation therapy, Mepitel® film, mometasone furoate, betamethasone, olive oil, and oral enzyme mixtures showed promising results across multiple RCTs. Recommendations could not be made solely based on the published evidence due to limited high-quality evidence. As such, Delphi consensus recommendations will be reported in a separate publication.

Barrier Films and Dressings for the Prevention of Acute Radiation Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of barrier films and dressings in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD).

METHODS

OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1946 to September 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials on the use of barrier films or dressings to prevent RD. For comparable outcomes between studies, pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects analysis in RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

Fourteen and 11 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. Five types of barrier films used for RD were identified: Hydrofilm, StrataXRT®, Mepitel® Film, 3 M™ Cavilon™ No-Sting Barrier Film, and silver leaf nylon dressing. Hydrofilm and Mepitel Film significantly reduced the development of RD grade ≥ 2 in breast and head and neck cancer patients (RR 0.32, 95%CI 0.19, 0.56, p < 0.0001; RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.05, 0.89, p = 0.03, resp.). Moreover, Hydrofilm had a beneficial effect on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (SMD -0.75, 95%CI -1.2, -0.29, p = 0.001). The meta-analyses on the other barrier films did not show any significant effect.

CONCLUSION

This review and meta-analysis demonstrated that Hydrofilm and Mepitel Film could effectively reduce RD severity and improve PROs. The evidence is generally weak for all the studies on barrier films and dressings due to a limited study number, high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and minimal comparable outcome measures. It's potential has been proven, but future research in this field is recommended to confirm the efficacy of these products and assess real-world feasibility.

Analysis of risk factors related to acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients during radiotherapy

Aims

To investigate the incidence and influencing factors of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) induced by radiotherapy in postoperative patients with breast cancer.

Methods and Materials

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 598 patients with breast cancer who received postoperative radiotherapy from November 18, 2014 to September 14, 2019. The radiotherapy technology included two-dimensional radiotherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and tomotherapy. The occurrence of ARD in patients was then followed up and recorded. The independent risk factors for radiation-induced dermatitis were analyzed by using an orderly logistic regression model.

Results

Of the 598 patients, 431 had mild skin reactions, including pigmentation and dry desquamation (grade 1), 151 developed wet desquamation and tender erythema (grade 2), and 16 had severe skin reactions, including flaky wet scaling and erosion (grade 3). There were no grade 4 skin reactions. The severity of ARD was independent of the following factors: Age, diabetes, allergy, quadrant, pathological type, the clinical stage, the tumor stage, triple-negative breast cancer, ki-67 expression, adjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, targeted therapy, radiotherapy area, and boost irradiation. However, it was found to be dependent on the body mass index, surgery type, radiotherapy technique, node stage, and the prophylactic use of topical agents.

Conclusions

ARD in response to postoperative radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer is common and mild. Clinicians and patients need to cultivate awareness of the potential risk factors involved and then intervene to alleviate skin reactions and improve the quality of life.

Modern Dressings in Prevention and Therapy of Acute and Chronic Radiation Dermatitis—A Literature Review

Radiotherapy is an integral part of modern oncology, applied to more than half of all patients diagnosed with cancer. It can be used alone or in combination with surgery or chemotherapy. However, despite the high precision of radiation delivery, irradiation may affect surrounding healthy tissues leading to the development of toxicity. The most common and clinically significant toxicity of radiotherapy is acute and chronic radiation dermatitis, which could result in desquamation, wounds, nonhealing ulcers, and radionecrosis. Moreover, preoperative radiotherapy impairs wound healing after surgery and may lead to severe wound complications. In this review, we comprehensively discuss available types of dressings used in the management of acute and chronic radiation dermatitis and address their efficacy. The most effective ways of preventing acute radiation dermatitis are film dressings, whereas foam dressings were found effective in its treatment. Data regarding dressings in chronic radiation dermatitis are scarce. This manuscript also contains authors’ consensus.

Radiation-induced skin injury: pathogenesis, treatment, and management

Radiation-induced skin injury (RSI) refers to a frequently occurring complication of radiation therapy. Nearly 90% of patients having received radiation therapy underwent moderate-to-severe skin reactions, severely reducing patients' quality of life and adversely affecting their disease treatment. No gold standard has been formulated for RSIs. In the present study, the mechanism of RSI and topical medications was discussed. Besides, this study can be referenced for clinicians to treat RSIs to guide subsequent clinical medicine.

Radiodermatitis in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to inform the development of guidelines on the management of radiodermatitis among patients with cancer.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The authors updated a systematic review to include available literature published through September 30, 2019.

DATA EVALUATION

Two investigators assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

SYNTHESIS

The use of deodorant/antiperspirant had no effect on development of radiodermatitis. Aloe vera and emu oil were equivalent or less effective than standard care. Oral curcumin had a minimal beneficial effect. Nonsteroidal topical interventions had a minimal beneficial effect on the development of moist desquamation and relief of itching while causing a small increase for grade 2 radiodermatitis. Topical calendula increased risk for the development of radiodermatitis. Topical steroids and dressings each showed benefits to minimize the development of radiodermatitis and moist desquamation while lowering rates of patient-reported symptoms, such as pain and pruritus.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Symptom management strategies for radiodermatitis among patients with cancer that are likely to be effective include topical nonsteroidals, topical steroids, and dressings.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS

//bit.ly/2FWj3Kp.

ONS Guidelines™ for Cancer Treatment-Related Radiodermatitis

PURPOSE

Radiodermatitis is a side effect of radiation therapy. Evidence-based interventions to minimize severity or delay progression are important for clinical care. This guideline intends to support individuals with cancer, clinicians, and others in decisions regarding radiodermatitis treatment.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

A panel of healthcare professionals with patient representation was convened to develop a national clinical practice guideline for the management of radiodermatitis. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine criteria for trustworthy guidelines were followed. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. A quantitative and narrative synthesis of the evidence was completed.

FINDINGS

The panel agreed on eight recommendations and made a conditional recommendation for deodorant/antiperspirant. Aloe vera and oral curcumin had knowledge gaps and were recommended only in the context of a clinical trial. The panel suggested against emu oil, calendula, and nonsteroidal interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

This guideline summarizes evidence-based interventions for the management of radiodermatitis to guide clinical care.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS

//bit.ly/2GEwJtT.

A Feasibility Study of Mepitel Film for the Prevention of Breast Radiation Dermatitis in a Canadian Center

PURPOSE

Severe radiation dermatitis (RD) is distressing and may have adverse long-term effects including fibrosis and telangiectasia. Treatment interruptions due to severe RD may increase the risk of recurrence. Two randomized trials of Mepitel film demonstrated efficacy in preventing severe RD in breast cancer, but this product has not been widely adopted in North America. We aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of Mepitel film for prevention of breast RD at a Canadian center.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients were stratified based on breast size and receipt of postmastectomy radiation therapy. The primary outcome was RD grade using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Secondary outcomes included moist desquamation, patient- and clinician-reported symptoms of skin toxicity, and cosmetic outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty patients receiving external beam radiation therapy to the breast or chest wall were enrolled. Two patients (6.7%) discontinued use of the Mepitel film before completing radiation therapy. No patients developed grade 3 RD or higher. Five patients (17.9%) developed grade 2 RD: 3 (10.7%) had moist desquamation, and 2 (7.1%) had brisk erythema without moist desquamation.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepitel film completely prevented grade 3 RD. Rates of moist desquamation and grade 2 RD were lower with Mepitel film than in studies using aqueous cream, but unlike previous trials of Mepitel film we did not achieve complete prevention of moist desquamation. Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy of Mepitel film versus standard prophylaxis for RD and identify the patients who will benefit the most from the film.

Radiation-induced skin toxicity: prophylaxis or management?

This editorial aims to provide context for changing skin care interventions for radiation-induced skin toxicities over several decades.

Mepitel Film is superior to Biafine cream in managing acute radiation-induced skin reactions in head and neck cancer patients: a randomised intra-patient controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

We previously showed that Mepitel Film decreased the severity of acute radiation-induced skin reactions in head and neck cancer patients. In the current study, we compared the effect of Mepitel Film and Biafine cream on skin reaction severity in a larger cohort of head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 44 head and neck cancer patients were recruited with 39 patients contributing full data sets for analysis. Patients received a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the bilateral lymph nodes in the neck. Left and right lymph node areas were randomised to either Mepitel Film or Biafine cream, applied prophylactically. Skin reaction severity was measured using Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS) and expanded Radiation Oncology group (RTOG) grades. Skin dose was measured using gafchromic Film.

RESULTS

Skin reaction severity (combined RISRAS score) underneath Mepitel Film was decreased by 30% (P < 0.001) and moist desquamation rates by 41% (P < 0.001). Skin dose underneath Mepitel Film and Biafine cream was similar (P = 0.925) and unlikely to have affected skin reaction severity. The vast majority (80%) of patients preferred Mepitel Film over Biafine cream. Negative aspects of Mepitel Film included poor adherence (11/39) and discomfort (16/39) during hot weather and showering and itchy skin underneath Mepitel Film (12/39).

CONCLUSIONS

Mepitel Film was superior to Biafine cream in reducing the severity of acute radiation-induced skin reactions and moist desquamation incidence in our head and neck patient cohort.

A monocentric, open-label randomized standard-of-care controlled study of XONRID®, a medical device for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced dermatitis in breast and head and neck cancer patients

Background

This study was an open-label, 2-arms, monocentric, randomized clinical trial comparing Xonrid®, a topical medical device, versus standard of care (SOC) in preventing and treating acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) and Breast Cancer (BC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT).

Methods

Eligible HNC and BC patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Xonrid® + SOC or SOC during RT. Patients were instructed to apply Xonrid® on the irradiated area three times daily, starting on the first day of RT and until 2 weeks after RT completion or until the development of grade ≥ 3 skin toxicity. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the proportion of patients who developed an ARD grade < 2 at the 5th week in both groups. Secondary endpoints were median time to grade 2 (G2) skin toxicity onset; changes in skin erythema and pigmentation and trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL); patient-reported skin symptoms. All patients were evaluated at baseline, weekly during RT and 2 weeks after treatment completion. The evaluation included: clinical toxicity assessment; reflectance spectrometry (RS) and TEWL examination; measurement of patients’ quality of life (QoL) through Skindex-16 questionnaire.

Results

Eighty patients (40 for each cancer site) were enrolled between June 2017 and July 2018. Groups were well balanced for population characteristics. All BC patients underwent 3-Dimensional Conformal RT (3D-CRT) whereas HNC patients underwent Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). At week 5 the proportion of BC patients who did not exhibit G2 ARD was higher in Xonrid® + SOC group (p = 0.091). In the same group the onset time of G2 ARD was significantly longer than in SOC-alone group (p < 0.0491). For HNC groups there was a similar trend, but it did not reach statistical significance. For both cancer sites, patients’ QoL, measured by the Skindex-16 score, was always lower in the Xonrid® + SOC group.

Conclusion

Despite the failure to achieve the primary endpoint, this study suggests that Xonrid® may represent a valid medical device in the prevention and treatment of ARD at least in BC patients, delaying time to develop skin toxicity and reducing the proportion of patients who experienced G2 ARD during RT treatment and 2 weeks later.

Trial registration

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT 52/14 - NCT02261181). Registered on ClinicalTrial.gov on 21st August 2017.

Quantitative Thermal Imaging Biomarkers to Detect Acute Skin Toxicity From Breast Radiation Therapy Using Supervised Machine Learning

PURPOSE

Radiation-induced dermatitis is a common side effect of breast radiation therapy (RT). Current methods to evaluate breast skin toxicity include clinical examination, visual inspection, and patient-reported symptoms. Physiological changes associated with radiation-induced dermatitis, such as inflammation, may also increase body-surface temperature, which can be detected by thermal imaging. Quantitative thermal imaging markers were identified and used in supervised machine learning to develop a predictive model for radiation dermatitis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ninety patients treated for adjuvant whole-breast RT (4250 cGy/f_x = 16) were recruited for the study. Thermal images of the treated breast were taken at 4 intervals: before RT, then weekly at f_x = 5, f_x = 10, and f_x = 15. Parametric thermograms were analyzed and yielded 26 thermal-based features that included surface temperature (°C) and texture parameters obtained from (1) gray-level co-occurrence matrix, (2) gray-level run-length matrix, and (3) neighborhood gray-tone difference matrix. Skin toxicity was evaluated at the end of RT using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) guidelines (Ver.5). Binary group classes were labeled according to a CTCAE cut-off score of ≥2, and thermal features obtained at f_x = 5 were used for supervised machine learning to predict skin toxicity. The data set was partitioned for model training, independent testing, and validation. Fifteen patients (∼17% of the whole data set) were randomly selected as an unseen test data set, and 75 patients (∼83% of the whole data set) were used for training and validation of the model. A random forest classifier with leave-1-patient-out cross-validation was employed for modeling single and hybrid parameters. The model performance was reported using receiver operating characteristic analysis on patients from an independent test set.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients presented with adverse skin effects, denoted by a CTCAE score ≥2, and had significantly higher local increases in skin temperature, reaching 36.06°C at f_x = 10 (P = .029). However, machine-learning models demonstrated early thermal signals associated with skin toxicity after the fifth RT fraction. The cross-validated model showed high prediction accuracy on the independent test data (test accuracy = 0.87) at f_x = 5 for predicting skin toxicity at the end of RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Early thermal markers after 5 fractions of RT are predictive of radiation-induced skin toxicity in breast RT.

Hydrofilm Polyurethane Films Reduce Radiation Dermatitis Severity in Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation: An Objective, Intra-Patient Randomized Dual-Center Assessment

Radiation-induced skin injury represents the most frequent side effect in breast cancer patients undergoing whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Numerous clinical studies on systemic and topical treatments for radiation dermatitis have failed to provide sustainable treatment strategies. While protective skin products such as dressings are undoubtedly the standard of care in wound care management, their utilization as preventive treatment in radiotherapy has been somewhat neglected in recent years. In this prospective, intra-patient randomized observational study, Hydrofilm polyurethane films were prophylactically applied to either the medial or lateral breast-half of 74 patients with breast cancer undergoing hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation following breast-preserving surgery. Maximum radiation dermatitis severity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 toxicity scores, photospectrometric erythema and pigmentation measurements and patient-assessed modified Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS) scale. Phantom studies revealed a clinically negligible dose build-up of less than 0.1% with Hydrofilm. Compared to the control compartments physician-assessed radiation dermatitis severity was reduced in the hydrofilm compartments (mean 0.54 vs. 1.34; p = < 0.001). Objective photospectrometric skin measurements showed decreased erythema (p = 0.0001) and hyperpigmentation (p = 0.002) underneath Hydrofilm. Hydrofilm also completely prevented moist desquamation, and significantly reduced patients' treatment-related symptoms of itching, burning, pain, and limitations of day-to-day-activities. Significant beneficial effects were observed in terms of radiation dermatitis severity, erythema, hyperpigmentation as well as subjective treatment-related symptom experiences, while adverse reactions were rare and minor. Therefore, a prophylactic application of Hydrofilm polyurethane films can be suggested in hypofractionated WBI.

A single-blind, randomised controlled trial of StrataXRT® - A silicone-based film-forming gel dressing for prophylaxis and management of radiation dermatitis in patients with head and neck cancer

AIM

Investigate the effects of StrataXRT® versus 10% Glycerine (Sorbolene cream) for preventing and managing radiation dermatitis in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radical radiotherapy (≥50 Gy) with or without chemotherapy or biotherapy.

METHODS

A single-blind, randomised controlled, superiority trial was conducted. Patients either received StrataXRT® or Sorbolene (usual care). Skin toxicity, pain, itching and skin-related quality of life scores were collected from baseline, and up to four weeks post-treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients were randomised into the study. Skin toxicity was dependent on the treatment group with StrataXRT® patients experiencing lower mean skin toxicity at the end of the radiation treatment (P = 0.002). At the end of treatment, the StrataXRT® arm had a lower percentage of grade 2 (80%) and grade 3 (28%) skin toxicity compared to the sorbolene arm (91% and 45% respectively). After adjustment for Cetuximab, the StrataXRT® arm had a 12% lower risk of experiencing grade 2 skin toxicity (RRR = 0.876, 95% CI: 0.778-0.987, P = 0.031); and a 36% lower risk of experiencing grade 3 skin toxicity (RRR = 0.648, 95% CI: 0.442-0.947, P = 0.025). Cox regression analysis showed that patients receiving StrataXRT® had a 41.0% and 49.4% reduced risks of developing grade 2 and 3 skin toxicity respectively throughout treatment compared to the Sorbolene arm. There were no differences between groups in patient-reported outcomes. No treatment interruptions and study product related adverse events were reported in either arm.

CONCLUSION

StrataXRT® is effective for preventing, and delaying the development of grade 2 and 3 skin toxicity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12616000511437.

Mepitel Film and Mepilex Lite for the prophylaxis and treatment of skin toxicities from breast radiation

Despite the prevalence of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients, current practice guidelines for its treatment are limited. We aimed to discuss the quality of evidence for the barrier-forming Mepitel Film for prophylaxis of radiation dermatitis, and argue for further investigation into evidence-based management of skin toxicities. Two studies assessing Mepitel Film were critically evaluated. Both reported that Mepitel Film decreased radiation dermatitis; moreover, patient-reported outcomes significantly favoured Mepitel Film. However, there has not been global adoption of barrier-forming films such as Mepitel, in part due to the absence of multi-centred randomised trials and the heterogeneity of study designs.

Prophylactically applied Hydrofilm polyurethane film dressings reduce radiation dermatitis in adjuvant radiation therapy of breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Radiation-induced skin injury represents one of the most common side effects in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy. Numerous systemic and topical treatments have been studied in the prevention and management of radiation-induced skin injury without providing sustainable treatment strategies. While superficial barrier-forming skin products such as dressings are the standard of care in wound care management, their utilization as preventive treatment approach in radiotherapy has barely attracted attention.

METHODS

In this prospective, intra-patient randomized study, Hydrofilm polyurethane film dressings were applied prophylactically to either the medial or lateral breast half of 62 patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy following breast conserving surgery. The breast half contralateral to the film dressing was concurrently treated with 5% urea lotion as control skin care. Maximum severity of radiation dermatitis was assessed using RTOG/EORTC toxicity scores, photospectrometric erythema measurements and patient-assessed modified RISRAS scale.

RESULTS

In the Hydrofilm compartments, mean maximum RTOG/EORTC radiation dermatitis severity grades were significantly reduced from 1.33 to 0.35 and photospectrometric measurements showed significantly reduced erythema severity, as compared to the control compartments, with an overall response rate of 89.3%. Hydrofilm completely prevented moist desquamation and significantly reduced patients' subjective experience of itching and pain.

CONCLUSION

The obtained results along with a favorable cost-benefit ratio and an easy and quick application suggest a prophylactic application of Hydrofilm in adjuvant radiotherapy of breast cancer patients to reduce or even prevent radiation dermatitis.