Perceptions of healthcare professionals on the use of Mepitel Film for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer.

Autor: Rajeswaran, Thenugaa, Kennedy, Samantha K. F., Gojsevic, Milena, Herst, Patries, Safavi, Amir H., Corbin, Kimberly, Hill, Rosemary, Karam, Irene, Tran, William, Gallant, François, Carothers, Katherine, Lam, Jacqueline, Trombetta, Mark, Arscott, William T., Shariati, Saba, Akkila, Shereen, Behroozian, Tara, Zhang, Elwyn, Chow, Edward
Zdroj: Supportive Care in Cancer; Dec2023, Vol. 31 Issue 12, p1-10, 10p
Abstrakt: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Databáze: Complementary Index
Externí odkaz: