Comparison of the efficacy among different interventions for radiodermatitis: A Bayesian network meta­analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a prevalent and difficult-to-manage consequence of radiation therapy (RT). A variety of interventions have been proven effective in preventing and treating RD. However, the optimal approach remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) conducted a comparison and ranking of the effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the interventions currently utilized in RD. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on the prevention and treatment of RD. The primary outcome measures included the incidence of grade≥2 RD (i.e., percentage of moist desquamation) and RD score. The secondary outcome measures encompassed patients' subjective assessment scores of pains, itching and burning sensations. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis encompassed 42 studies and 4884 participants. Regarding the primary outcomes, photobiomodulation treatment (PBMT) ranked first in surface under curve cumulative ranking area (SUCRA:0.92) for reducing the incidence of grade≥2 RD. It demonstrated a significant difference when compared to Trolamine (OR 0.18,95%CrI 0.09-0.33) and Xonrid® (OR 0.28,95%CrI 0.12-0.66). Mepitelfilm (SUCRA: 0.98) achieved the highest rank in reducing the RD score, demonstrating superiority over StrataXRT® (MD -0.89, 95% CrI -1.49, -0.29). Henna (SUCRA: 0.89) demonstrated the highest effectiveness in providing pain relief, with a significant difference compared to Hydrofilm (MD -0.44, 95% CrI -0.84, -0.04) and Mepitelfilm (MD -0.55, 95% CrI -0.91, -0.19). Hydrofilm (SUCRA: 0.84) exhibited the fewest itching sensations, demonstrating superiority over Mepitelfilm (MD -0.50, 95% CrI -0.84, -0.17). No statistically significant difference was observed among various interventions in the assessment of burning sensations. CONCLUSION: PBMT and Mepitelfilm demonstrated better efficacy in reducing the incidence of grade≥2 RD and RD score, respectively. In terms of PROs, Henna and Hydrofilm had fewer complaints in pain and itching sensations, respectively. However, studies with larger sample size on different interventions are warranted in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023428598.

Effectiveness of glutamine for the treatment of radiodermatitis in cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: After receiving radiation therapy, 60%-95% of patients with cancer develop radiodermatitis, which causes pain, wound infection, and poor quality of life. Glutamine is a popular nutritional supplement for patients with cancer. Several studies examined the usefulness of glutamine for reducing radiodermatitis. However, there is still no consolidated evidence for clinical use. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL PLUS, and the China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database for the relevant literature published up to March 2023, without language restrictions. Two reviewers screened, filtered, and appraised these articles independently, and their data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 218 participants were analyzed. The incidence of radiodermatitis in the glutamine group (89/110) was significantly lower than in the placebo group (99/108; risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 7%). The incidence of moderate to severe radiodermatitis was significantly lower in the glutamine group than in the placebo group (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001; I2 = 52%). Moreover, subgroup analysis demonstrated heterogeneity (I2 = 52%) for moderate to severe radiodermatitis, the risk of which might be significantly reduced by a glutamine dose of 20-30 g/day (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis indicate that glutamine might lead to a lower incidence of radiodermatitis, and that a glutamine dose of 20-30 g/day might decrease the incidence of moderate to severe dermatitis. Thus, the serious impact of radiodermatitis on treatment follow-up makes the clinical use of glutamine even more important. PROSPERO number: CRD42021254394.

Association of Skin Microbiome Dynamics With Radiodermatitis in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: The interindividual differences in severity of acute radiation dermatitis are not well understood. To date, the pathomechanism and interplay of microbiome and radiodermatitis before and during treatment remain largely unknown. Objective: To assess the association of skin microbiome baseline composition and dynamics with severity of radiodermatitis in patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A longitudinal prospective pilot observational study was conducted between January 2017 and January 2019. Sequencing results were received in March 2021, and the data were analyzed from August 2021 to March 2023. This study was performed at an urban academic university cancer center. A total of 21 female patients with breast cancer after surgery were consecutively approached, of which 1 patient withdrew consent before the study started. Exposure: Adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer for 7 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association of baseline skin microbiome composition and its dynamics with the severity of radiodermatitis. A total of 360 skin microbiome samples from patients were analyzed, taken before, during, and after radiotherapy, from both the treated and contralateral healthy sides. The skin microbiome samples were analyzed using 16S (V1-V3) amplicon sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction bacterial enumeration. Results: Twenty female patients with breast cancer after surgery who underwent radiotherapy enrolled in the study had a median (range) age of 61 (37-81) years. The median (range) body mass index of the patients was 24.2 (17.6-38.4). The 16S sequencing revealed that low (<5%) relative abundance of commensal skin bacteria (Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus hominis, Cutibacterium acnes) at baseline composition was associated with the development of severe radiodermatitis with an accuracy of 100% (sensitivity and specificity of 100%, P < .001). Furthermore, in patients with severe radiodermatitis, quantitative polymerase chain reaction bacterial enumeration revealed a general non-species-specific overgrowth of skin bacterial load before the onset of severe symptoms. Subsequently, the abundance of commensal bacteria increased in severe radiodermatitis, coinciding with a decline in total bacterial load. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this observational study indicated a potential mechanism associated with the skin microbiome for the pathogenesis of severe radiodermatitis, which may be a useful biomarker for personalized prevention of radiodermatitis in patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer.

CSMed® wound dressing for prophylaxis and management of radiation dermatitis in breast and head-neck cancer patients: a single hospital prospective clinical trial.

PURPOSE: CSMed® wound dressing, a dressing with various herb extracts, was tested for its therapeutic effect in radiation dermatitis of breast and head-and-neck cancer patients. METHODS: This study included 20 breast cancer patients and 10 head-and-neck cancer patients. Half of the irradiated area was covered with CSMed® and the other half was under routine treatment. The severity of radiation dermatitis was evaluated with radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) grade throughout the treatment and the follow-up period. The RTOG grade between the dressed and undressed area were compared to illustrate the therapeutic effect of CSMed® dressing. RESULTS: The results showed that CSMed® dressed area had significant lower RTOG score at 3-7 weeks and final record during the treatment, and 1-3 weeks during follow-up than undressed area. CONCLUSIONS: This indicated that CSMed® can delay the onset, reduce the severity, and enhance healing of radiation dermatitis. CSMed® can be used for prophylaxis and management of radiation dermatitis.

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.

Decrease of radiation-induced skin reactions in breast cancer patients by preventive application of film dressings-a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Radiation-induced skin reactions remain one of the most frequent side effects of adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer, which is the most common global malignancy. In individual cases, we observed a decrease in radiation dermatitis under film dressings used for skin marking purposes. Therefore, we decided to revise the available evidence regarding the prophylactic use of film dressings to reduce radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients. METHODS: On 20 March 2023, we conducted a systematic review of literature for randomized controlled trials published in the English, German, French, or Spanish language, available in the PubMed database. RESULTS: Of 82 publications, 9 full texts were assessed and 6 randomized controlled trials were included in the final synthesis. Two trials analyzed the application of polyurethane film (Hydrofilm, Paul Hartmann AG, Heidenheim, Germany), the other four of silicone-based polyurethane film (Mepitel film, Molnlycke Health Care Limited, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom). The evaluation scales Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS) were used for assessment. All six trials, with a total of 788 patients yielding data for analysis, demonstrate a significant decrease in radiation-induced skin reactions by use of the film (mainly p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates a significant decrease in radiation-induced skin reactions by prophylactically applied film dressings in breast cancer patients. Consequent preventive use of film dressings might systematically reduce acute radiation-induced skin reactions in these patients.

Evaluation of the effect of herbal agents as management of radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of herbal agents in the prevention and therapy of radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were searched from databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to assess the effectiveness of herbal agents compared to a standard medication or placebo in prevention or treatment of radiodermatitis in breast cancer. RESULTS: Data from 16 studies involving 1994 patients were included. This meta-analysis included 10 clinical trials of 562 breast cancer patients treated with calendula, silymarin, or aloe vera for the prevention of radiodermatitis. Silymarin showed positive effects in ameliorating the damage of radiodermatitis, whereas the efficacy of calendula and aloe vera in the treatment of radiodermatitis lacks sufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Herbal medicine may show therapeutic effects on radiodermatitis in breast cancer, but more comprehensive investigations and clinical trials are required in the future.

Pharmaceutical management of acute radiation dermatitis in the German speaking radiation oncology community.

BACKGROUND: Radiation dermatitis (RD) remains the most common side effect in radiation therapy (RT) with various pharmaceutical options available for prevention and treatment. We sought to determine pharmaceutical management patterns of radiation dermatitis among radiation oncology professionals. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among the German-speaking community of radiation oncologists inquiring for their opinion on preventive and therapeutic pharmaceutical approaches for acute RD. RESULTS: 244 health professionals participated. Dexpanthenol lotion is the agent most widely used both for prevention (53.0%) and treatment (76.9%) of RD, followed by urea (29.8%) for prevention and corticosteroids (46.9%) for treatment. A wide range of substances is used by participants, though the overall experience with them is rather limited. 32.5% of participants do generally not recommend any preventative treatment. 53.4% of participants recommend alternative medicine for RD management. While seldomly used, corticosteroids were considered most effective in RD therapy, followed by dexpanthenol and low-level laser therapy. A majority of participants prefers moist over dry treatment of moist desquamation and 43.8% prescribe antiseptics. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical management of RD in the German-speaking radiation oncology community remains controversial, inconsistent, and partially not supported by evidence-based medicine. Stronger evidence level and interdisciplinary consensus is required amongst practitioners to improve these care patterns.

Head and neck cancer patients under radiotherapy undergoing skin application of hydrogel dressing or hyaluronic acid: results from a prospective, randomized study.

PURPOSE: Acute radiodermatitis (ARD) is a frequent side effect of radiotherapy, a therapeutic option for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). It is responsible for pain, quality of life (QoL) impairment, and increased risk of treatment discontinuation, which may compromise the prognosis for patients. Local therapies to prevent or alleviate ARD have been proposed without providing any high level of evidence to establish recommendations. METHODS: We implemented a prospective multicenter randomized study on patients with HNSCC treated with definitive radiotherapy to assess the impact on ear, nose, and throat (ENT) pain of the application of a hydrogel-based skin dressing (HydroTac®) compared with the application of hyaluronic acid (Ialuset®) during radiotherapy. RESULTS: Out of 130 enrolled patients, 48 patients per group were assessable for the main endpoint. No difference between groups was found: a worsening of ENT pain of 3 points or more on a visual analog scale from the initiation to 1 month after the end of the radiotherapy was observed for 8 patients (16.7%) who received HydroTac® compared to 13 patients (27%) who received Ialuset® (p = 0.342). The proportion of patients who experienced ARD and grades of ARD (CTCAE v4.0 criteria) were similar between groups. Patient compliance with radiodermatitis treatment was poor, with 56.1% of patients in the HydroTac® group having their treatment temporarily stopped. CONCLUSION: The application of a hydrogel dressing to prevent ARD during radiotherapy for HNSCC patients has failed to demonstrate a benefit. These results may be limited by the difficulties of applying the dressing.

StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of radiation dermatitis: a critical review.

PURPOSE: The primary objective is to systematically review primary studies, such as randomized control trials (RCTs), feasibility, exploratory, and case studies; and the secondary objective is to evaluate all secondary articles, such as reviews, guidelines, and editorials, relevant to the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and/or management of radiation dermatitis (RD) in cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted up to February 26, 2023, for articles investigating the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of RD, in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar. The keywords "StrataXRT", "dermatitis", "radiotherapy", and "radiation" were used to identify relevant articles. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles from 2018 to 2022 were identified to fulfill the inclusion criteria of this review, of which nine are primary studies and 18 are secondary papers. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the current literature studying the effects of StrataXRT, making it difficult to make cross-trial comparisons. There is a suggestion of the efficacy of StrataXRT in the prevention and treatment of RD. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review recommend further adequately powered RCTs with robust methodology including patient and clinician assessments to determine the efficacy of StrataXRT in preventing and treating RD. This is essential to improve the quality of life of patients and identify which groups of patients would benefit most from StrataXRT.

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.

Topical Ectoin Versus Topical Dexpanthenol for Managing Acute Radiodermatitis Associated With Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: A Randomized Double-Blind Study.

Background: Radiodermatitis is a common side effect of breast cancer radiotherapy; however, there is no current consensus regarding an effective standard therapy. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of topical ectoin versus dexpanthenol in the management of acute radiodermatitis after breast cancer radiotherapy. Methods: Fifty patients randomly used dexpanthenol 5% cream (25 patients), or ectoin 7% cream (25 patients), applied twice daily to the irradiated area during and for 2 weeks after radiotherapy. The study was stratified by the radiotherapy schedule and was double-blind. Radiodermatitis grade, radiation-associated symptoms, and adverse events were assessed weekly during radiotherapy and 2 weeks thereafter. Skin-related quality of life (QOL) scores were measured using the Skindex-16 questionnaire. Results: Both agents were effective in preventing severe radiodermatitis (≥G3). Ectoin had a lower radiodermatitis grade level than dexpanthenol, with a significant difference at week 2 (P = 0.008). Radiation-associated pain (P = 0.003) and itching (P = 0.001) were lower with ectoin than dexpanthenol. Side effects were not significantly different between the 2 treatments (P = 0.107). Ectoin showed less QOL impairment than dexpanthenol. The radiation schedule was an independent predictor for radiodermatitis persistence. Conclusion: Ectoin showed some clinical benefit over dexpanthenol in improving radiation dermatitis and the radiation schedule is a predictor of radiodermatitis persistence.

A blinded-endpoint, randomized controlled trial of Sanyrene with natural active ingredient for prophylaxis of radiation dermatitis in patients receiving radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Sanyrene® vs. control intervention (DaBao®, a complex of hyaluronic acid and Vitamin E) for acute radiation dermatitis in patients receiving radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer or head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy (≥ 50 Gy) were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned to either Sanyrene arm or control intervention arm in a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint was incidence rate of ≥ grade 2 radiation induced dermatitis. (Trial Registration: ChiCTR2100050910, registration date: 9/7/2021) RESULTS: A total of 102 eligible patients were randomly assigned into the study. The rate of ≥ grade 2 radiation dermatitis was 22% in Sanyrene group, as compared with 67.3% in the control intervention group (P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 radiation dermatitis was 20.4% and 8.0% in control intervention group and Sanyrene group, respectively (P = 0.076). Patients in Sanyrene group had a longer median time to reach ≥ grade 2 radiation dermatitis compared to these in control intervention group, with hazard ratio of 0.231 (95%CI:0.116-0.458, p < 0.001). Mean score of SD-16 were much higher in control intervention group than Sanyrene group at end of radiotherapy (25 vs.8.3), 2 weeks after radiotherapy (22.9 vs. 0.5) and 4 weeks after radiotherapy (4.2 vs.0), with significantly statistical difference between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial suggests that Sanyrene is effective on preventing serious radiation dermatitis and improving skin related quality of life in patients with breast cancer or head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy.

A novel, multi-active emollient for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of a novel, multi-active emollient in preventing and managing acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in breast cancer patients undergoing moderate hypofractionated (HF) radiotherapy (RT) compared to standard of care. METHODSA: A monocentric, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) with breast cancer patients receiving moderate HF (dose: 40.05-55.86 Gy, fractions: 15-21) was conducted between January 2022 and May 2023. The experimental group received the novel emollient, while the control group received the standard skin care. Patients applied the skin care products twice daily during the complete RT course. The primary outcome was the severity of ARD at the final RT session measured by the modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria. Secondary outcomes included patient symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients with 50 patients per group were enrolled. In the control group, 50% of the patients developed RTOG grade 1 ARD and 48% grade 2 or higher, while in the experimental group, the severity of ARD was significantly lower with 82% grade 1 and 16% grade 2 ARD (P = .013, χ2-test). The frequency and severity of xerosis were significantly lower in the experimental compared to the control group (Ps ≤ .036, Mann Whiney U test). The impact of ARD on the QoL was low, and treatment satisfaction was high in both groups, with no significant difference. CONCLUSION: This RCT shows that the novel, multi-active emollient significantly reduced the ARD RTOG grade. Research in a more diverse patient population is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04929808 (11/06/2021).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bacterial Decolonization for Prevention of Radiation Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence-based approaches for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) are limited, and additional strategies are necessary to optimize care. Objective: To determine the efficacy of bacterial decolonization (BD) to reduce ARD severity compared with standard of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2/3 randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 2019 to August 2021 with investigator blinding at an urban academic cancer center and enrolled patients with breast cancer or head and neck cancer receiving radiation therapy (RT) with curative intent. Analysis was performed on January 7, 2022. Interventions: Intranasal mupirocin ointment twice daily and chlorhexidine body cleanser once daily for 5 days prior to RT and repeated for 5 days every 2 weeks through RT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome as planned prior to data collection was the development of grade 2 or higher ARD. Based on wide clinical variability of grade 2 ARD, this was refined to grade 2 ARD with moist desquamation (grade 2-MD). Results: Of 123 patients assessed for eligibility via convenience sampling, 3 were excluded, and 40 refused to participate, with 80 patients in our final volunteer sample. Of 77 patients with cancer (75 patients with breast cancer [97.4%] and 2 patients with head and neck cancer [2.6%]) who completed RT, 39 were randomly assigned BC, and 38 were randomly assigned standard of care; the mean (SD) age of the patients was 59.9 (11.9) years, and 75 (97.4%) were female. Most patients were Black (33.7% [n = 26]) or Hispanic (32.5% [n = 25]). Among patients with breast cancer and patients with head and neck cancer (N = 77), none of the 39 patients treated with BD and 9 of the 38 patients (23.7%) treated with standard of care developed ARD grade 2-MD or higher (P = .001). Similar results were observed among the 75 patients with breast cancer (ie, none treated with BD and 8 [21.6%] receiving standard of care developed ARD grade ≥2-MD; P = .002). The mean (SD) ARD grade was significantly lower for patients treated with BD (1.2 [0.7]) compared with patients receiving standard of care (1.6 [0.8]) (P = .02). Of the 39 patients randomly assigned to BD, 27 (69.2%) reported regimen adherence, and only 1 patient (2.5%) experienced an adverse event related to BD (ie, itch). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that BD is effective for ARD prophylaxis, specifically for patients with breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03883828.