Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Long-term patient-reported outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of Mepitel Film versus standard of care for the prevention of acute breast radiation dermatitis.
Trial report 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionThis study aims to evaluate the long-term skin-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing Mepitel Film (MF) to standard of care (SOC) for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in breast cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT).
methodsPatients were contacted via telephone at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post-RT to complete the Skin Symptom Assessment (SSA) and Radiation-induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS). SSA and RISRAS scores at follow-up visits were compared to baseline using a generalized estimation equation with Poisson distribution and log link function. To account for multiple testing, the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value of < 0.001 was considered statistically significant.
resultsFrom April 2020 to August 2024, 376 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and followed at the pre-specified time points. When comparing MF and SOC, no significant differences were captured longitudinally regardless of the severity of ARD (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade [G] 0-1 versus G2-3). Comparing to the baseline scores, patients reported worse pruritis at 6 months and pigmentation at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months (p < 0.001) for the SSA. For the RISRAS, tenderness/discomfort/pain, itchiness and burning sensation were worse at 6 months (p < 0.001), but only itchiness was worse at 12 and 24 months (p = 0.0007, p < 0.001, respectively) compared to baseline. In the subgroup analysis of patients based on the severity of ARD, pigmentation was worse at all follow-up visits (p < 0.001) in both G0-1 and G2-3 cohorts.
conclusionPROs returned to baseline at 6 months to 2 years after RT, except pigmentation and pruritis that persist regardless of the severity of ARD, necessitating confirmation with physical signs and further research to understand the pathophysiology of these chronic symptoms to guide preventative strategies. No long-term issues were identified in patients treated with MF, confirming it as a safe and effective strategy for the prevention of ARD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42243522What 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.