Search

Background and Purpose: Clinicians use the CTCAE scale to grade radiation dermatitis (RD) based on edema, erythema, and desquamation. The purpose of this study was to correlate the CTCAE scores with the severity of patient-reported symptoms using a skin symptom assessment (SSA) and the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS)., Materials and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial involving 376 patients receiving Mepitel Film or standard-of-care for RD prophylaxis. The highest symptom categories for SSA and patient-component RISRAS assessments were selected from all time points, and a summary analysis and Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated for patients with CTCAE Grades 0, 1, 2, 3, and Grade 2/3, respectively. Analyses were conducted across all patients, within each treatment arm, and between arms in patients with only Grade 2 or 3 toxicity., Results: Weak correlations between CTCAE scores and all patient-reported skin symptoms were found across the entire cohort and each treatment arm (p < 0.05). Patients with Grade 2 (n = 72) and Grade 3 RD (n = 24) reported similar rates of patient-reported moderate-to-severe skin symptoms (11-72% vs 14-79%), with no significant difference in rates of individual moderate-to-severe symptom between these cohorts (p > 0.05). Between treatment arms, rates of patient-reported moderate-to-severe scores were similar for most symptoms., Conclusion: CTCAE RD scores are weakly correlated with patient-reported skin symptoms and cannot distinguish between patients with severe patient-reported outcomes. Clinicians should consider the limitations of CTCAE grading and incorporate patient-reported outcomes within clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval This research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Human ethics and consent to participate declarations were not applicable. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Purpose: The study evaluated the concordance between patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and clinician-reported outcomes (CRO) of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) symptoms following adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer., Material and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a multi-center randomized phase 3 trial (376 patients). Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to compare the Skin Symptom Assessment (SSA) independently reported by both patients and clinicians. Concordance between patient- and clinician-reported SSAs for RD symptoms was measured by percent concordance, concordance index (C-statistic), and Cohen's Kappa. Analyses were performed across all patients in the original modified intention-to-treat analysis and those with only grade 2-3 (CTCAE) RD., Results: PROs were significantly more severe than CROs across all RD symptoms (Odds Ratio [OR] > 1; p < 0.0001). Pigmentation (OR 5.4), blistering/peeling (OR 4.0), and pain/soreness (OR 3.9) were the most differentially reported symptoms. Poor-to-low concordance was noted between patient- and clinician-reported SSAs for all RD symptoms for the entire cohort (percent concordance < 50%, C-statistic 0.52-0.63, Cohen's Kappa 13.9-23.4%) and those with grade 2-3 RD (percent concordance < 50%, C-statistic 0.56-0.66, Cohen's Kappa 2.0-24.5%). Similarly, poor-to-low concordance was noted in both Mepitel film and standard-of-care arms., Conclusion: PROs and CROs have poor concordance in breast RD, and patients report worse outcomes than clinicians, regardless of RD severity or prophylaxis. PROs must be further integrated into routine clinical practice and clinical trial design to reduce the risk of underreporting symptoms., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a painful side effect of radiation therapy (RT). The objective of this analysis was to investigate the validity and reliability of the Skin Symptom Assessment (SSA) questionnaire in evaluating the severity of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes for RD in breast cancer patients by comparing it to a validated assessment tool, the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS) questionnaire., Methods: This study compared patient and clinician-reported outcomes for RD from previous clinical trials conducted in a Canadian cancer centre. The analysis included 376 and 38 patients in the two trials using Mepitel Film (doi.org/10.1200) and StrataXRT (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05594498), respectively. Patients in both studies completed the SSA and RISRAS questionnaires at baseline, 2-weeks post-RT, and 3 months after completion of RT. Clinician SSA and RISRAS assessments were collected at baseline and 2-weeks post-RT. These time points were analyzed longitudinally to investigate the SSA's validity in RD symptom assessment., Results: The majority of patient-reported items on the SSA and RISRAS assessments demonstrated positive significant associations between symptoms of itchiness, between pain/soreness and pain/discomfort, and between blistering or erythema with burning sensation items. All items in the clinician-reported SSA and clinician component of RISRAS showed positive statistical significance between items measuring erythema, pigmentation or edema with dry desquamation, and blistering/peeling with moist desquamation., Conclusions: The SSA has been validated for assessing patient- and clinician-reported symptoms of RD accurately as outcomes correlate well with the previously validated RISRAS assessment., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Previous literature has produced heterogeneous results on StrataXRT for prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer. This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of StrataXRT in a cancer center., Methods: The study consisted of five cohorts: (1) patients with large breasts treated with local radiation therapy (RT) either in the supine position or (2) the prone position, (3) patients receiving locoregional breast RT with any breast size, and (4) patients receiving chest wall RT, either locally or (5) locoregionally. The primary endpoint of the study was RD grade as assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Secondary endpoints included incidence of moist desquamation (MD), patient- and clinician-reported skin assessments, patient quality of life as assessed by the Skindex-16, and patient satisfaction. These outcomes were compared with those from a published trial from the same institution assessing standard of care and Mepitel Film (MF) as prevention of breast RD., Results: Forty-five patients receiving RT to the breast or chest wall were enrolled. Two withdrew, leaving 43 evaluable patients. Overall, two (4.7%) patients had grade 3 RD, 14 (32.6%) had grade 2 RD, and 27 (62.8%) had grade 1 RD. Ten patients (23.3%) developed MD during/after RT., Conclusion: StrataXRT is effective in preventing grade 3 RD in patients, and the most promising results were observed within the prone cohort. Further research includes evaluating the efficacy of StrataXRT against the standard of care for the prophylaxis of RD., Trial Registration: The study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05594498) on October 13, 2022., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Purpose: Mepitel Film (MF) has been demonstrated to reduce the severity of radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients receiving breast cancer radiotherapy (RT). The objective of this study was to characterize patient-reported experience with MF use, including its impact on daily activities and wellbeing., Materials and Methods: This single-institution study analyzed anonymized responses to a questionnaire completed by patients who used MF for the prevention of RD during breast cancer RT., Results: Of the 254 patients contacted, 192 patients completed the survey. Most patients disagreed or strongly disagreed that MF limited their ability to perform their daily activities, including household chores (88%, n = 169/191), their ability to work (83%, n = 157/189), or their ability to sleep (85%, n = 163/191). Furthermore, patients agreed or strongly agreed MF was comfortable on their skin (67%, n = 126/189) and protected their skin from rubbing against clothing (86%, n = 161/188). Some patients agreed or strongly agreed that MF affected their ability to shower (31%, n = 50/162), wear bras (28%, n = 51/185), and impacted their level of pruritus (35%, n = 67/189). However, most patients agreed or strongly agreed that their overall experience with MF was positive (92%, n = 173/189) and would recommend MF to a friend undergoing breast cancer RT (88%, n = 166/188)., Conclusion: MF use is associated with positive patient-reported experience during breast RT with minimal impact on daily activities., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

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., (© 2023. Crown.)

Purpose: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is common in patients undergoing breast radiotherapy. Mepitel film (MF) can reduce RD, but the results from two randomized controlled trials are conflicting. We aimed to conduct a confirmatory randomized controlled trial in patients at risk of RD., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive MF or standard care (2:1 ratio). Patients with large breasts after lumpectomy (bra size ≥ 36 inches or cup size ≥ C) or after mastectomy were eligible. Stratification factors included surgery type, dose fractionation, and administration of boost/bolus. The primary end point was grade (G) 2 or 3 RD using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Secondary end points included patient- and clinician-reported outcomes., Results: Between January 2020 and May 2022, 376 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The incidence of G2 or 3 RD was significantly lower in MF patients compared with standard care (n = 39/251, 15.5%; 95% CI, 11.3 to 20.6% v n = 57/125, 45.6%; 95% CI, 36.7 to 54.8% respectively, odds ratio (OR): 0.20, P < .0001). Benefits of MF remained significant in patients who developed G 3 RD (n = 7, 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.7% v n = 17, 13.6%; 95% CI, 8.1 to 20.9%, OR: 0.19) and moist desquamation (n = 20, 8.0%; 95% CI, 4.9 to 12.0% v n = 24, 19.2%; 95% CI, 12.7 to 27.1%, OR: 0.36). When evaluating the combined patient and health care provider score using Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale, the MF arm had significantly lower scores ( P < .0001). Individual items on the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale also favored the MF for both patient- and clinician-reported outcomes. Blistering/peeling, erythema, pigmentation, and edema were significantly reduced in the MF arm. Three patients removed the film prematurely because of rash (n = 2) and excessive pruritus (n = 1)., Conclusion: MF significantly reduces RD in patients undergoing breast radiotherapy.

Purpose: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a side effect experienced by many patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for breast cancer. In the present study, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a validated patient-reported symptom screening tool, was used to determine the impacts of RT-induced skin outcomes on ESAS items. Patient- and treatment-related factors and skin treatments to manage RD symptoms, were assessed for association with ESAS scores., Methods: Patient and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively for breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant RT between December 2013 and November 2015. Prospective data was collected through clinician-reported surveys. Linear regression analyses were performed to detect the relationship between patient-reported ESAS scores and clinician-reported RD symptoms., Results: A total of 857 patients were included in the analysis. Moderate to severe scores were commonly reported for fatigue (n = 412, 48%), wellbeing (n = 386, 45%) and anxiety (n = 266, 31%). Oral analgesic use was associated with ESAS fatigue, drowsiness, pain, nausea, lack of appetite, shortness of breath, and wellbeing (P < .05), while dressings were only associated with anxiety (P = .02). No RD symptoms were found to be significantly associated with any ESAS items., Conclusions: The ESAS accurately reflects symptoms of fatigue, anxiety, and wellbeing for breast cancer patients undergoing RT. Our study, however, found no association between ESAS scores and RD severity, which may reflect the shortcomings of the ESAS in assessing symptom burden. Further research is necessary to warrant the development of a new site-specific symptom screening tool for use in RT for breast cancer., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Purpose: Breast cancer patients frequently develop radiation dermatitis (RD) when undergoing post-operative radiation therapy (RT). Traditional RD assessment methods measure clinician-reported outcomes (CROs), but patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gained recent popularity. The purpose of this prospective analysis was to compare PROs with CROs of breast RD., Materials and Methods: Demographic and treatment characteristics were prospectively collected for patients receiving post-operative RT between February 2018 to September 2020. Patients and clinicians completed a skin symptom assessment at baseline, weekly during RT, and at a one- to three-month follow-up visit. Skin treatments used by patients were collected. Concordance between each PRO and CRO was determined using percent concordance and concordance index (C-statistic) by logistic regression analysis., Results: A total of 777 patients were included in the present study. All skin symptom assessment items were significantly underreported by clinicians in comparison to patients (p < 0.0001), with a low to moderate level of concordance (C-statistic range: 0.58-0.70; percent concordance range: 29-50%). The majority of patients used moisturizing creams as a prophylactic measure (65.1%), as per institutional guidelines., Conclusion: There were significant discrepancies between PROs and CROs when assessing breast RD. CROs alone are insufficient in measuring RD as they fail to capture the impact on patient quality of life. The study findings highlight the need for improved RD symptom assessment and support the development of a new tool with both patient and clinician components., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancer patients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT)., Methods: A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases on 14 February 2020. English articles that evaluated an instrument's use in assessing RD among breast cancer patients receiving external beam RT were included. Studies that reported on the reliability, validity, or concordance of items between assessment tools were included in accordance with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria., Results: Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 13 skin toxicity assessment tools discussed. Tools that assessed clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) mostly reported moderate correlation with biophysical parameter (BP) measurements and low correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Traditionally used CRO scoring tools demonstrated moderate inter-rater reliability between clinicians, likely due to the subjective nature of items on the grading scales. Most commonly used tools were found to be either insufficient or indeterminate in their measurement properties., Conclusions: Current standardized tools that measure CROs are subject to clinician interpretation and fail to represent the patient experience. Tools designed to assess PROs are promising in their assessments of the impact of RT on patient quality of life; however, most PRO tools are generic to all skin conditions and require further validation for use in breast cancer. Among tools that measure CROs, PROs, and BPs, there is insufficient evidence on their measurement properties to establish a "gold standard" for the assessment of RD in breast cancer patients.

Purpose: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a side effect that frequently arises during radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients. The present study investigates possible predictive factors of RD, as well as the use of skin treatments to manage symptoms., Methods: Demographic and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively, while skin symptoms and treatments were collected prospectively for patients who received adjuvant RT between December 2013 and November 2015. Patients were seen weekly by clinicians throughout treatment, during which a clinician-reported survey was completed on RD symptoms and skin treatments. Possible predictive factors were correlated with skin outcomes through a univariate ordinal logistic regression analysis., Results: A total of 1093 patients were included in this analysis. Predictive factors for erythema included dose fractionation (p<0.0001), tissue volume irradiated by tangential fields (p = 0.01), and administration of a boost (p = 0.005). High BMI (≥30 kg/m 2 ) (p = 0.0004) and boost (p = 0.02) were predictive of edema. A dose of 50 Gy/25 (p<0.0001) and a high irradiated tissue volume (p = 0.0001) were predictive of desquamation. A dose of 50 Gy/25 (p = 0.0005) and high BMI (p = 0.02) were predictors of pain. Bolus use was the only factor associated with bleeding (p = 0.02). Patients who developed desquamation were likely to receive corticosteroids/antihistamines (p<0.0001), topical antibiotics/antifungals (p<0.001), and dressings (p<0.0001)., Conclusion: The findings of this study provide evidence of potential predictors of RD and methods of symptom management based on symptom severity. Prevention of RD is needed among high-risk groups, such as patients with a high BMI or receiving a standard fractionation, boost, or bolus., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Radiation Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that tumor cell death can be enhanced 10- to 40-fold when radiotherapy (RT) is combined with focused-ultrasound (FUS)-stimulated microbubbles (MB) treatment. MBs are gas microspheres used as intravascular contrast agents. The acoustic exposure of MBs within the target volume causes bubbles cavitation that induces perturbation of tumor vasculature. This activates apoptotic pathways responsible for the ablative effect of stereotactic body radiotherapy, which would otherwise require high-dose radiotherapy (>8-10 Gy/fraction) to be activated. Subsequent irradiation of an MB-sensitized tumor causes increased anoxic tumor killing, which occurs in addition to canonical RT-induced DNA damage. Given the compelling results of preclinical data, we conducted a phase I clinical trial of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided FUS-stimulated MBs (MRgFUS+MB) treatment for breast cancer patients (pts). We report the safety and efficacy results of this new radio enhancement treatment. This is a single-center, single-arm, investigator-initiated phase 1 clinical trial (NCT04431674). We included pts with stage I-IV breast cancer with tumor in situ for whom breast or chest wall RT was deemed adequate by a multidisciplinary team. Pts were excluded if they had contraindications for contrast-enhanced MR or MB administration. Pts underwent 2-3 MRgFUS+MB treatments throughout the RT course. We used an MR-coupled FUS-device operating at 500 KHz and 540 kPa peak negative pressure to deliver the treatment. The FUS sonicated intravenously administrated MB within the MR-guided target volume. Pts were monitored for 30-min post-procedure and subsequently treated with RT. The primary outcome was acute toxicity per Common Terminology for Adverse Events V5.0. Secondary outcomes were radiological response at 3 months and local control (LC) at 1 year. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate local control. All pts signed a written consent form before study participation. We enrolled 18 females with 20 primary breast cancer treated with MRgFUS+MB therapy. The median age was 60 years (range, 44-90). The molecular subtypes consisted of basal-like (n = 3/20), luminal (n = 11/20), and HER2-enriched (n = 6/20). The prescribed dose was 20 Gy/5 fractions (n = 8/20), 30-35 Gy/5 fractions (n = 7/20), 30-40 Gy/10 fractions (n = 3/20), and 66 Gy/33 fractions (n = 2/20). The median follow-up was 9 months (range, 0.3-29). All pts completed the planned MRgFUS+MB treatments. The only MRgFUS+MB treatment-related toxicity consisted of Grade 1 allergic reaction (mild cough) 30 minutes after the last MB injection. All worst acute toxicities were radiation dermatitis (Grade 3 = 2/20, Grade 2 = 2/20, Grade 1 = 14/20). At 3 months, 75% had partial (n = 6/20) or complete (n = 9/20) response, with a single progression. The LC rate at 1 year was 86%. MRgFUS+MB was a safe and efficient treatment that provided durable responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]