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

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.

Patient-reported experience with the use of Mepitel Film for prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer

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.

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.

Postmastectomy Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: 5-Year Oncologic and Patient-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To report oncologic, physician-assessed, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a group of women homogeneously treated with modern, skin-sparing multifield optimized pencil-beam scanning proton (intensity modulated proton therapy [IMPT]) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed consecutive patients who received unilateral, curative-intent, conventionally fractionated IMPT PMRT between 2015 and 2019. Strict constraints were applied to limit the dose to the skin and other organs at risk. Five-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated as part of a prospective registry at baseline, completion of PMRT, and 3 and 12 months after PMRT.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients were included. One hundred nine (86%) received chemotherapy, among whom 82 (65%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 4.1 years. Five-year locoregional control was 98.4% (95% CI, 93.6-99.6), and overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI, 78.7-96.5). Acute grade 2 and 3 dermatitis was seen in 45% and 4% of patients, respectively. Three patients (2%) experienced acute grade 3 infection, all of whom had breast reconstruction. Three late grade 3 adverse events occurred: morphea (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and seroma (n = 1). There were no cardiac or pulmonary adverse events. Among the 73 patients at risk for PMRT-associated reconstruction complications, 7 (10%) experienced reconstruction failure. Ninety-five patients (75%) enrolled in the prospective PRO registry. The only metrics to increase by >1 point were skin color (mean change: 5) and itchiness (2) at treatment completion and tightness/pulling/stretching (2) and skin color (2) at 12 months. There was no significant change in the following PROs: bleeding/leaking fluid, blistering, telangiectasia, lifting, arm extension, or bending/straightening the arm.

CONCLUSIONS

With strict dose constraints to skin and organs at risk, postmastectomy IMPT was associated with excellent oncologic outcomes and PROs. Rates of skin, chest wall, and reconstruction complications compared favorably to previous proton and photon series. Postmastectomy IMPT warrants further investigation in a multi-institutional setting with careful attention to planning techniques.

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.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis: international Delphi consensus-based recommendations

Acute radiation dermatitis is a frequent adverse effect of radiotherapy, but standardisation of care for acute radiation dermatitis is lacking. Due to the conflicting evidence and variability in current guidelines, a four-round Delphi consensus process was used to compile opinions of 42 international experts on care for people with acute radiation dermatitis on the basis of the evidence in existing medical literature. Interventions for acute radiation dermatitis prevention or management that reached at least 75% consensus were recommended for clinical use. Six interventions could be recommended for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis: photobiomodulation therapy and Mepitel film in people with breast cancer, Hydrofilm, mometasone, betamethasone, and olive oil. Mepilex Lite dressings were recommended for the management of acute radiation dermatitis. Most interventions were not recommended due to insufficient evidence, conflicting evidence, or lack of consensus to support use, suggesting a need for further research. Clinicians can consider implementing recommended interventions in their practice to prevent and manage acute radiation dermatitis until additional evidence becomes available.

Mepitel Film for the Prevention of Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer: A Randomized Multicenter Open-Label Phase III Trial

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.

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.