Search

Purpose: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is one of the most common pre-invasive cancers diagnosed in women. Quality of life (QoL) is extremely important to assess in studies including these patients due to the favorable prognosis of the disease. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compile a comprehensive list of QoL issues, all existing QoL assessment tools, and patient-reported outcome measures used to assess DCIS., Methods: A search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to August 2023, using keywords such as "ductal carcinoma in-situ", "quality of life", and "patient-reported outcomes." QoL issues and QoL tools in primary research studies were extracted., Results: A total of 67 articles identified issues pertaining to patients with DCIS spanning physical, functional, and psychosocial QoL domains. Physical and functional issues observed in patients included pain, fatigue, and impaired sexual functioning. Psychosocial issues such as anxiety, depression, and confusion about one's disease were also common. QoL tools included those that assessed general QoL, breast cancer-specific tools, and issue-specific questionnaires., Conclusion: The current instruments available to assess QoL in patients with DCIS do not comprehensively capture the issues that are pertinent to patients. Thus, the modification of existing tools or the creation of a DCIS-specific QoL tool is recommended to ensure that future research will be sensitive towards challenges faced by patients with DCIS., (© 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.)

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., (© 2024 The Author(s).)