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.

Concurrent Nab-paclitaxel and Radiotherapy: Novel Radiosensitization for Borderline Resectable or Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the toxicity and tumor response with concurrent nab-paclitaxel chemoradiotherapy (CRT) compared with standard (5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine) CRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2014 to 2017 were divided into 2 groups: concurrent nab-paclitaxel (100 to 125 mg/m2 weekly) CRT (median: 2.1 Gy fraction size and 52.5 Gy total) or standard CRT (median: 1.8 Gy fraction size, 54.5 Gy total). The primary endpoint was toxicity, and secondary endpoints were local failure and conversion to resectability. Comparisons were made using rank-sum or Fisher exact test and multivariable competing risk regression for the cumulative incidence of local failure. RESULTS: There were 28 patients in the nab-paclitaxel CRT group and 22 in the standard CRT group; 88% had the unresectable disease. The median follow-up was 18 months. The median duration of chemotherapy before concurrent CRT was 1.9 and 2.3 months in the nab-paclitaxel and standard CRT groups (P=0.337), and radiotherapy dose was 52.5 Gy (range, 52.5 to 59.4 Gy) and 54.5 Gy (range, 45.0 to 59.4 Gy), respectively. There were no statistically significant grade ≥2 toxicities. The nab-paclitaxel CRT group experienced a nonstatistically significant lower incidence of local failure (hazard ratio=0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-3.03, P=0.536). More patients in the nab-paclitaxel CRT group proceeded to surgery (9/28 compared with 3/22 in the standard CRT, P=0.186); of which 6 (25%) in the nab-paclitaxel CRT and 2 (10%) in the standard CRT groups were initially unresectable. CONCLUSIONS: Nab-paclitaxel CRT had similar toxicity compared with standard CRT in the treatment of borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer. Its use was associated with an arithmetically lower cumulative incidence of local failure and an arithmetically higher conversion to resectability, both of which were not statistically significant.