ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mepitel Film for prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a Canadian healthcare perspective.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MASCC oncodermatology clinical practice statement: prevention of acute radiation dermatitis using barrier-forming topical agents.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Reliability of radiotherapist assessment for radiation induced skin-toxicity: investigational study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile randomized clinical trials (RCT) confirmed superiority of Mepitel Film (MF) in reducing acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) compared to standard-of-care (SoC), the incremental cost difference has limited its use. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted from a Canadian healthcare payer's perspective to guide policy decisions.
methodsA decision model was constructed to perform a CEA for MF compared to SoC (moisturizers) for prevention of grade 2 or higher ARD following adjuvant hypo-fractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) based on a Canadian multicentre RCT. Direct and indirect cost data were collected from two oncology centers in Canada. Quality-of-life (QoL) utility values were derived from mapping Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores for patients with grade 2 or higher ARD at week 6 of RT to EQ-5D. A willingness-to-pay (WTF) threshold of CAD 50,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty in decision model assumptions.
resultsBase case analysis demonstrated that MF is cost-effective in preventing grade 2 or higher ARD as compared with SoC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 3366 per QALY gained. When indirect costs were included, MF resulted in an ICER of CAD 2823 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results were most sensitive to the QoL utility value for ARD. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that MF demonstrates 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.
conclusionsMF is a cost-effective intervention for preventing high-grade ARD and should be recommended for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant RT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41697485What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.