Do Barrier Films Impact Long-Term Skin Toxicity following Whole-Breast Irradiation? Objective Follow-Up of Two Randomised Trials.

Purpose: Hydrofilm, a polyurethane-based barrier film, can be used to prevent acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in adjuvant whole-breast irradiation (WBI) for breast cancer. This cost-effective prophylactic measure is currently being recommended to a growing number of patients, yet long-term safety data and its impact on late radiation-induced skin toxicity such as pigmentation changes and fibrosis have not been investigated. Methods: We objectively evaluated patients who were previously enrolled in either of two intrapatient-randomised (lateral versus medial breast halve) controlled trials on the use of Hydrofilm for RD prevention (DRKS00029665; registered on 19 July 2022). Results: Sixty-two patients (47.7% of the initial combined sample size) provided consent for this post-hoc examination, with a median follow-up time (range) of 58 (37-73) months. Following WBI, there was a significant increase in yellow skin tones of the entire breast when compared to baseline measurements before WBI (p < 0.001) and a significant increase of cutis, subcutis, and oedema thickness (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.004, respectively). At follow-up, there were no significant differences in either pigmentation changes or skin fibrosis between the Hydrofilm and standard of care breast halves. Conclusion: These data suggest that Hydrofilm can be safely used in the context of acute RD prevention, without affecting late side effects, supporting its widespread use.

Objective, Clinician- and Patient-Reported Evaluation of Late Toxicity Following Adjuvant Radiation for Early Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up Results of a Randomised Series.

Background and Purpose: This study aimed to differentially assess the frequency and severity of late radiation-induced toxicity following adjuvant whole-breast irradiation for early breast cancer with conventional fractionation (CF) and moderate hypofractionation (mHF). Materials and Methods: Patients recruited in a previous randomised controlled trial comparing acute toxicity between CF and mHF without disease recurrence were included in a post hoc analysis. Spectrophotometric and ultrasonographic examinations were performed for an objective evaluation and subsequent comparison of long-term skin toxicity. Furthermore, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes were recorded. Results: Sixty-four patients with a median age of 58 (37-81) years were included. The median follow-up was 57 (37-73) months. A total of 55% underwent CF and 45% mHF. A total of 52% received a sequential boost to the tumour bed. A significant decrease in mean L* (p = 0.011) and an increase in a* (p = 0.040) and b* values (p < 0.001) were observed, indicating hyperpigmentation. In comparison with the non-irradiated breast, there was a significant increase in both cutis (+14%; p < 0.001) and subcutis (+17%; p = 0.011) thickness, significantly more pronounced in CF patients (p = 0.049). In CF patients only, a sequential boost significantly increased the local cutis thickness and oedema compared to non-boost regions in the same breast (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: mHF objectively resulted in reduced long-term skin toxicity compared to CF. A sequential boost increased the local fibrosis rate in CF, but not in mHF. This might explain the subjectively reported better cosmetic outcomes in patients receiving mHF and reinforces the rationale for favouring mHF as the standard of care.

Barrier films for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common side effect of adjuvant whole-breast or chest wall irradiation, majorly impacting quality of life in numerous patients. The use of barrier films (polyurethane dressings such as Hydrofilm® and Mepitel® film remaining on the skin for the duration of the radiation treatment) has been investigated as a prophylactic measure in several prospective trials. Here, we critically appraise the available evidence behind preventive barrier film application in the context of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: International literature was reviewed and high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of 5 RCTs (663 patients; >90% Caucasian) were analysed. Overall, barrier films lead to improved clinician- and patient-reported outcomes: fewer grade ≥2 RD (11% vs. 42%; OR = 0.16; p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (2% vs. 16%; OR = 0.12; p = 0.006), as well as less patient-reported pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0.51; p < 0.001), itching (SMD -0.52; p = 0.001), burning (SMD -0.41; p = 0.011), and limitations in daily activities (SMD -0.20; p = 0.007). Furthermore, barrier films have a high acceptance rate among patients, as well as a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Possible side effects due to its application are mild and mostly self-limiting. Overall, there was a lack of information on the radiation treatment techniques used. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented in this meta-analysis suggests that barrier films are an excellent tool in the prevention of RD among Caucasian patients receiving whole-breast or chest wall irradiation. Its use should therefore be considered routinely in these patients.

Non-Invasive Physical Plasma for Preventing Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer: A First-In-Human Feasibility Study.

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common acute side effect of breast irradiation. More than a century following the therapeutic utilisation of X-rays, potent preventative and therapeutic options are still lacking. Non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP) is an emerging approach towards treatment of various dermatological disorders. In this study, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of a NIPP device on RD. Thirty patients undergoing hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation were included. Parallel to radiation treatment, the irradiated breast was treated with NIPP with different application regimens. RD was assessed during and after NIPP/radiation, using clinician- and patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, safety and feasibility features were recorded. None of the patients was prescribed topical corticosteroids and none considered the treatment to be unpleasant. RD was less frequent and milder in comparison with standard skin care. Neither NIPP-related adverse events nor side effects were reported. This proven safety and feasibility profile of a topical NIPP device in the prevention and treatment of RD will be used as the framework for a larger intrapatient-randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, using objective and patient-reported outcome measures as an endpoint.