Patient- vs Physician-Initiated Response to Symptom Monitoring and Health-Related Quality of Life: The SYMPRO-Lung Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: Online symptom monitoring through patient-reported outcomes can enhance health-related quality of life and survival. However, widespread adoption in clinical care remains limited due to various barriers including the need to reduce health care practitioners' workload. Objective: To report the effects of patient-reported outcome (PRO) symptom monitoring on HRQOL and survival up to 1 year after initiation of any treatment in patients with lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: SYMPRO-Lung is a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial including patients with stage I to IV lung cancer. The inclusion period was from October 24, 2019, until September 16, 2021, and data collection ended October 8, 2022. Data analysis was conducted from November 9, 2023, until March 18, 2024. Intervention: Patients in the intervention group reported PRO symptoms weekly using the Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events lung cancer subset. If symptoms exceeded a validated threshold, an alert was sent to the health care practitioner (active intervention subgroup) or to the patient (reactive intervention subgroup). Patients in the control group received standard care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health-related quality of life was measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline, 15 weeks (T1), 6 months (T2), and 1 year (T3), with the summary score (SS) and physical functioning (PF) as primary end points. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to assess mean differences over time. Effect size (ES) of 0.40 or greater was considered clinically relevant. Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were performed to estimate the effect of the intervention on progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 515 patients (266 [51.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 65.4 [9.4] years) were included in the study (266 in the control group; 249 in the pooled intervention group). Most baseline characteristics were balanced between groups; however, the most notable exception was the distribution in cancer staging: the intervention group had a higher proportion of patients with stage IV cancer compared with the control group (139 [56%] vs 118 [44%]). The pooled intervention group had a significantly better SS (mean difference T1, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.72-7.73; P < .001; ES = 0.33; mean difference T2, 6.28; 95% CI, 3.65-8.92; P < .001; ES = 0.40; mean difference T3, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.15-6.80; P = .006; ES = 0.25) compared with the control group. Group differences improved more in PF but did not meet the ES greater than or equal to 0.40 threshold (mean difference T1, 7.00; 95% CI, 3.65-10.35; P < .001; ES = 0.27; mean difference T2, 6.79; 95% CI, 3.26-10.31; P < .001; ES = 0.26; mean difference T3, 5.01; 95% CI, 1.23-8.79; P = .009; ES = 0.19). No significant differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive (n = 89) and active (n = 160) intervention groups. The HR for progression-free survival for the active intervention group compared with the control group was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.04); the finding was not statistically significant. The HR for overall survival for both interventions groups compared with the control group were not statistically significant.(active: HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.15; reactive: HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15). Conclusions and Relevance: In this 1-year follow-up of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, PRO symptom monitoring yielded improvements in long-term HRQOL in patients with lung cancer. The reactive approach proved equally effective as the active approach. A nonsignificant potential survival benefit was observed for the intervention group. These positive results provide further evidence for the usefulness of routine PRO symptom monitoring in lung cancer care. Trial Registration: The Netherlands trial register Identifier: NL7897.

Barrier films or dressings for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Barrier films or dressings were reported to be effective in preventing radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients, but their comparative efficacy is unknown. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Clinical Trials from inception to October 20, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing barrier films or dressings to the standard of care (SOC) or other interventions were included. We estimated summary odds ratios and mean differences using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023475021). RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. Six interventions were analysed: 3M™ Moisturizing Double Barrier Cream (MDBC), 3M™ No Sting Barrier Film (BF), Hydrofilm® (HF), Mepitel® Film (MF), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing and StrataXRT®. HF, MF and StrataXRT® reduced the incidence of moist desquamation compared to SOC (HF: OR = 0.08; p = 0.02; MF: OR = 0.31 p < 0.01; StrataXRT®: OR = 0.22, p = 0.04). The ranking of agents from most to least effective in preventing moist desquamation according to P-scores was HF (92.5%), MF (78.5%), StrataXRT® (70.1%), BF (46.4%), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing (24.9%), MDBC (22.9%) and SOC (14.7%). Only four RCTs on HF and MF included patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments that allowed pooling for analysis. HF and MF were more effective in reducing pain, itchiness and burning sensation compared to SOC (p < 0.01 for all symptoms). CONCLUSION: HF and MF were effective in preventing RD in breast cancer. Future RCTs should compare these interventions to effective cream preparations, such as topical corticosteroids.

Results of the Dutch scalp cooling registry in 7424 patients: analysis of determinants for scalp cooling efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced alopecia is a common consequence of cancer treatment with a high psychological impact on patients and can be prevented by scalp cooling (SC). With this multi-center patient series, we examined the results for multiple currently used chemotherapy regimens to offer an audit into the real-world determinants of SC efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Dutch Scalp Cooling Registry collected data on 7424 scalp-cooled patients in 68 Dutch hospitals. Nurses and patients completed questionnaires on patient characteristics, chemotherapy, and SC protocol. Patient-reported primary outcomes at the start of the final SC session included head cover (HC) (eg, wig/scarf) use (yes/no) as a surrogate for patient satisfaction with SC and WHO score for alopecia (0 = no hair loss up to 3 = total alopecia) as a measure of scalp cooling success. Exhaustive logistic regression analysis stratified by chemotherapy regimen was implemented to examine characteristics and interactions associated with the SC result. RESULTS: Overall, over half of patients (n = 4191, 56%) did not wear a HC and 53% (n = 3784/7183) reported minimal hair loss (WHO score 0/1) at the start of their final treatment. Outcomes were drug and dose dependent. Besides the chemotherapy regimen, this study did not identify any patient characteristic or lifestyle factor as a generic determinant influencing SC success. For non-gender specific cancers, gender played no statistically significant role in HC use nor WHO score. CONCLUSIONS: Scalp cooling is effective for the majority of patients. The robust model for evaluating the drug and dose-specific determinants of SC efficacy revealed no indications for changes in daily practice, suggesting factors currently being overlooked. As no correlation was identified between the determinants explaining HC use and WHO score outcomes, new methods for evaluation are warranted.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on renal cancer care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Newly diagnosed RCCs between 2018 and 2021 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry; 2020-2021 was defined as COVID period and 2018-2019 as reference period. Numbers of RCCs were evaluated using 3-week-moving averages, overall and by disease stage and age. Changes in treatment were evaluated with logistic regression analyses. To evaluate possible delays in care, time to start of treatment was assessed. The cumulative number of metastatic RCC (mRCC) over time was assessed to evaluate stage shift. RESULTS: During the 1st COVID wave (weeks 9-22, 2020), the number of new RCC diagnoses decreased with 15%. Numbers restored partially in 2020, but remained 10% lower compared to 2018/2019. The decline was mostly due to a drop in T1a/T1b RCCs and in age > 70 years. 2021 showed similar numbers of new RCC diagnoses compared to 2018/2019 without an increase due to previously missed RCCs. Treatment-related changes during the 1st COVID wave were limited and temporarily; less surgery in T1a RCCs in favor of more active surveillance, and in mRCC targeted therapy was preferred over immunotherapy. Time to start of firstline treatment was not prolonged during the 1st COVID wave. No increase in mRCC was found until the end of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in fewer RCC diagnoses, especially T1a/T1b tumors. Treatment-related changes appeared to be limited, temporarily and in accordance with the adapted guidelines. The diagnostic delay could lead to more advanced RCCs in later years but there are no indications for this yet.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidance for the prevention of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL): international Delphi consensus-based recommendations.

Background: Developing strategies to prevent breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL) is a critical unmet need because there are no effective interventions to eradicate it once it reaches a chronic state. Certain strategies such as prospective surveillance programs and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction have been reported to be effective in clinical trials. However, a large variation exists in practice based on clinician preference, organizational standards, and local resources. Methods: A two-round international Delphi consensus process was performed from February 27, 2023 to May 25, 2023 to compile opinions of 55 experts involved in the care and research of breast cancer and lymphoedema on such interventions. Findings: Axillary lymph node dissection, use of post-operative radiotherapy, relative within-arm volume increase one month after surgery, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, and high body mass index were recommended as the most important risk factors to guide selection of patients for interventions to prevent BCRAL. The panel recommended that prospective surveillance programs should be implemented to screen for and reduce risks of BCRAL where feasible and resources allow. Prophylactic compression sleeves, axillary reverse mapping and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction should be offered for patients who are at risk for developing BCRAL as options where expertise is available and resources allow. Recommendations on axillary management in clinical T1-2, node negative breast cancer patients with 1-2 positive sentinel lymph nodes were also provided by the expert panel. Routine axillary lymph node dissection should not be offered in these patients who receive breast conservation therapy. Axillary radiation instead of axillary lymph node dissection should be considered in the same group of patients undergoing mastectomy. Interpretation: An individualised approach based on patients' preferences, risk factors for BCRAL, availability of treatment options and expertise of the healthcare team is paramount to ensure patients at risk receive preventive interventions for BCRAL, regardless of where they are receiving care. Funding: This study was not supported by any funding. RJC received investigator grant support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1194051).

Patient-reported symptom monitoring: using (big) data to improve supportive care at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the need for continued development of symptom monitoring (SM) implementation, utilization, and data usage at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels. METHODS: Discussions from a patient-reported SM workshop at the MASCC/ISSO 2022 annual meeting were analyzed using a macro-meso-micro analytical framework of cancer care delivery. The workshop categories "initiation and implementation, barriers to adoption and utilization, and data usage" were integrated for each level. RESULTS: At the macro-level, policy development could encourage data sharing and international collaboration, including the exchange of SM methods, supportive care models, and self-management modules. At the meso-level, institutions should adjust clinical workflow and service delivery and promote a thorough technical and clinical integration of SM. At the micro-level, SM should be individualized, with timely feedback for patients, and should foster trust and understanding of AI decision support tools amongst clinicians to improve supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop reached a consensus among international experts on providing guidance on SM implementation, utilization, and (big) data usage pathways in cancer survivors across the cancer continuum and on macro-meso-micro levels.

Remote Symptom Monitoring to Enhance the Delivery of Palliative Cancer Care in Low-Resource Settings: Emerging Approaches from Africa.

This paper brings together researchers, clinicians, technology developers and digital innovators to outline current applications of remote symptom monitoring being developed for palliative cancer care delivery in Africa. We outline three remote symptom monitoring approaches from three countries, highlighting their models of delivery and intended outcomes, and draw on their experiences of implementation to guide further developments and evaluations of this approach for palliative cancer care in the region. Through highlighting these experiences and priority areas for future research, we hope to steer efforts to develop and optimise remote symptom monitoring for palliative cancer care in Africa.

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.

Quality of life after patient-initiated vs physician-initiated response to symptom monitoring: the SYMPRO-Lung trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients. METHODS: The SYMPRO-Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL-C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation.

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.

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

PURPOSE: To evaluate the overall efficacy of StrataXRT, a topical gel dressing, in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on April 25, 2023 in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of StrataXRT in preventing acute RD in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant RT to the breast or chest wall with or without regional nodes were included. Pooled incidence odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, with analysis and forest plots generated in RevMan v5.4. RESULTS: The analysis included three RCTs with a total of 189 patients assessed using per-protocol analysis. Two RCTs compared StrataXRT to standard of care, while the third compared it with Mepitel film and was reported separately. In the former RCTs, the odds ratio (OR) for developing acute grade 3 RD favored StrataXRT at 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P < 0.0001). The OR for developing acute grades 2-3 RD was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.03-3.18; P = 0.33). The RCT comparing StrataXRT with Mepitel film showed insignificant ORs for grade 3 and grades 2-3 RD. One RCT reported significantly lower erythema index (P = 0.008) and melanin index (P = 0.015) in StrataXRT patients. The use of StrataXRT did not raise additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION: StrataXRT may help prevent severe acute RD in breast cancer RT patients. Further high quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The PRO-RCC study: a long-term PROspective Renal Cell Carcinoma cohort in the Netherlands, providing an infrastructure for 'Trial within Cohorts' study designs.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing research in the field of both localized, locally advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma has resulted in the availability of multiple treatment options. Hence, many questions are still unanswered and await further research. A nationwide collaborative registry allows to collect corresponding data. For this purpose, the Dutch PROspective Renal Cell Carcinoma cohort (PRO-RCC) has been founded, for the prospective collection of long-term clinical data, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs). METHODS: PRO-RCC is designed as a multicenter cohort for all Dutch patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Recruitment will start in the Netherlands in 2023. Importantly, participants may also consent to participation in a 'Trial within cohorts' studies (TwiCs). The TwiCs design provides a method to perform (randomized) interventional studies within the registry. The clinical data collection is embedded in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Next to the standardly available data on RCC, additional clinical data will be collected. PROMS entail Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), symptom monitoring with optional ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of pain and fatigue, and optional return to work- and/or nutrition questionnaires. PREMS entail satisfaction with care. Both PROMS and PREMS are collected through the PROFILES registry and are accessible for the patient and the treating physician. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethical board approval has been obtained (2021_218) and the study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05326620). DISCUSSION: PRO-RCC is a nationwide long-term cohort for the collection of real-world clinical data, PROMS and PREMS. By facilitating an infrastructure for the collection of prospective data on RCC, PRO-RCC will contribute to observational research in a real-world study population and prove effectiveness in daily clinical practice. The infrastructure of this cohort also enables that interventional studies can be conducted with the TwiCs design, without the disadvantages of classic RCTs such as slow patient accrual and risk of dropping out after randomization.

Topical corticosteroids for the prevention of severe radiation dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a frequently occurring adverse reaction during radiotherapy in cancer patients. While the use of topical corticosteroids (TCs) is common for the treatment of RD, its role in preventing severe reactions remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the evidence on the use of TCs as prophylaxis of RD. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using OVID MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane databases (between 1946 and 2023) to identify studies examining TC use in the prevention of severe RD. Statistical analysis was completed using RevMan 5.4 to calculate pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals. Forest plots were then developed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with a total of 1041 patients met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported on mometasone furoate (MF) and four studies reported on betamethasone. Both TCs were associated with a significant improvement in the prevention of moist desquamation [OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.25, 0.47], p < 0.00001], but betamethasone was found to be more effective than MF [OR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.18, 0.46], p < 0.00001 and OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.25, 0.61], p < 0.0001, respectively]. A similar finding was seen in reducing the development of grade 2 or higher RD according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports the use of TCs in preventing severe reactions of RD. Both MF and betamethasone were found to be effective; however, betamethasone, a higher potency TC, is more effective despite MF being more commonly reported in literature.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on interventions for radiation dermatitis prevention and management: an overview of the methods.

Over several decades, research on the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) has continued to emerge, yet there remains no "gold standard" treatment for RD care. Recent guidelines on RD prevention and management were published in 2022 by the Oncodermatology Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). As part of this guideline process, a collaborative effort was undertaken by international RD experts to quantitatively compare commonly studied RD skin interventions through meta-analyses and discern superiority of interventional treatments over another intervention, standard-of-care, or placebo in RD prevention and management. This paper summarizes the materials and methodology used in a set of meta-analysis studies that supplement the 2022 MASCC Clinical Practice Guidelines on RD Prevention and Management.

Minimal added value of wetting hair before scalp cooling to prevent chemotherapy-induced alopecia in cancer patients - results from the Dutch Scalp Cooling Registry.

PURPOSE: Preventing chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) is related to the degree of temperature reduction during scalp cooling. Wetting hair before scalp cooling reduces the scalp skin temperature. This observational study investigated the effects of wetting hair before scalp cooling on preventing CIA and on tolerance in cancer patients. METHODS: This Dutch multi-center cohort study comprised 1825 patients receiving ≥1 cycle of docetaxel (D), 5-fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (FEC), 5-fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide-docetaxel (FECD), paclitaxel (P), or paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC). Patients underwent scalp cooling with wet or dry hair. Primary and secondary outcomes were the effects of wetting hair on head cover use and tolerance, respectively. RESULTS: None of the associations between wetting hair and head cover use in patients on D, FEC, P, or PC was significant; however, results all tended to be in favor of wetting hair. For FECD, univariate (p=0.005; OR=1.6; CI=1.1-2.1) and multivariable associations (p=0.007; OR=1.8; CI=1.2-2.6) were significant. Scalp cooling discontinuation due to intolerance differed significantly between groups that wetted hair or not (3% and 1% respectively; p=0.034). CONCLUSION: In a large patient group with mainly a European hair type and a high hair mass, no convincing evidence was found whether wetting hair prior to scalp cooling contributes to better prevention of CIA. Since it is argued that a higher reduction in scalp skin temperature by wetting hair contributes positively to scalp cooling efficacy, only a randomized controlled trial can provide an ultimate conclusion at the highest level of evidence. Until that time, healthcare professionals have to take into account that wetting hair may introduce lower compliance to the scalp cooling procedure.

Prevention of radiation dermatitis with skin hygiene and washing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of washing in patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) on radiation dermatitis (RD) severity. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases between January 1, 1946, and January 31, 2023. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effects of washing with or without soap on RD were identified. A meta-analysis was conducted for clinician-reported outcomes using RevMan 5.4 and a narrative synthesis for patient-reported outcomes due to a lack of reported data amenable to quantitative comparison in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. The Cochrane Risk of bias (RoB2) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria were used to assess risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively. RESULTS: Two RCTs met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Washing with or without soap significantly reduced the incidence of severe RD (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.55, p < 0.01) and moist desquamation (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.52, p < 0.01). Two of four trials found an association between washing and reduced itching score (p = 0.38). Pain score was not found to be significantly different with or without washing in any of the four studies (p = 0.07). The two studies that assessed burn scores did not detect any difference between the washing group versus no washing group (p = 0.25). Washing was associated with improved quality of life (QoL) measures in one study. CONCLUSION: Washing with or without soap during RT resulted in less severe RD and less moist desquamation. Given the QoL benefits of washing, it should be advocated as part of routine skin care during RT.