Practical radiation oncology · 2020
A Feasibility Study of Mepitel Film for the Prevention of Breast Radiation Dermatitis in a Canadian Center.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yee Caitlin, Lam Emily, Gallant Francois, Karam Irene, Czarnota Gregory, Soliman Hany, Wong Gina, Drost Leah, Vesprini Danny, Rakovitch Eileen, Wronski Matt, Leung Eric, Szumacher Ewa, Carothers Kathy, Pon Kucy, Gonzales Glen, Easton Linda, Lewis Donna, Zhang Liying, Chow Edward
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Severe radiation dermatitis (RD) is distressing and may have adverse long-term effects including fibrosis and telangiectasia. Treatment interruptions due to severe RD may increase the risk of recurrence. Two randomized trials of Mepitel film demonstrated efficacy in preventing severe RD in breast cancer, but this product has not been widely adopted in North America. We aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of Mepitel film for prevention of breast RD at a Canadian center.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were stratified based on breast size and receipt of postmastectomy radiation therapy. The primary outcome was RD grade using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Secondary outcomes included moist desquamation, patient- and clinician-reported symptoms of skin toxicity, and cosmetic outcomes.
RESULTS: Thirty patients receiving external beam radiation therapy to the breast or chest wall were enrolled. Two patients (6.7%) discontinued use of the Mepitel film before completing radiation therapy. No patients developed grade 3 RD or higher. Five patients (17.9%) developed grade 2 RD: 3 (10.7%) had moist desquamation, and 2 (7.1%) had brisk erythema without moist desquamation.
CONCLUSIONS: Mepitel film completely prevented grade 3 RD. Rates of moist desquamation and grade 2 RD were lower with Mepitel film than in studies using aqueous cream, but unlike previous trials of Mepitel film we did not achieve complete prevention of moist desquamation. Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy of Mepitel film versus standard prophylaxis for RD and identify the patients who will benefit the most from the film.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were stratified based on breast size and receipt of postmastectomy radiation therapy. The primary outcome was RD grade using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Secondary outcomes included moist desquamation, patient- and clinician-reported symptoms of skin toxicity, and cosmetic outcomes.
RESULTS: Thirty patients receiving external beam radiation therapy to the breast or chest wall were enrolled. Two patients (6.7%) discontinued use of the Mepitel film before completing radiation therapy. No patients developed grade 3 RD or higher. Five patients (17.9%) developed grade 2 RD: 3 (10.7%) had moist desquamation, and 2 (7.1%) had brisk erythema without moist desquamation.
CONCLUSIONS: Mepitel film completely prevented grade 3 RD. Rates of moist desquamation and grade 2 RD were lower with Mepitel film than in studies using aqueous cream, but unlike previous trials of Mepitel film we did not achieve complete prevention of moist desquamation. Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy of Mepitel film versus standard prophylaxis for RD and identify the patients who will benefit the most from the film.