Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 4, 2019

Patients’ view of the differences in topical creams for radiation dermatitis prevention. A pilot study of cosmetic properties

Sebastia Sabater, Rafael Leon, Cesar Esteban, Jose Luis Añon, Meritxell Arenas

Summary:

Aim To investigate the feasibility of including patients’ reports on the cosmetic properties of topical formulations for acute radiation dermatitis (ARD). Background No topical agent tested for acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) has proven to be better than any other, all achieving similar objective outcomes. No clear guidelines have therefore been established in clinics. Because the vehicle for such creams has shown to be an important factor in patient adherence to treatments in other dermatological diseases, patients’ opinions are evaluated. Material and methods Seventy breast cancer patients referred for postoperative radiotherapy after conservative surgery were enrolled. Patients were assigned to use one of the 7 topical agents that are most-commonly used in the prevention of ARD. Patients’ reports were assessed using continuous visual analogue scales (VAS), objective signs and symptoms produced by ARD, and were rated using the RTOG and RISRAS scales. Results The creams tested differed in their cosmetic properties significantly (p = 0.044). The performance of the agent, their absorption and any residue left over were also significantly different (p = 0.022, 0.014 and 0.02, respectively). Conclusions Topical agents for preventive ARD are reported by patients to show different cosmetic properties. Cosmetic properties are important when choosing topical agents for ARD prevention. Recommending those with better cosmetic profiles would improve patient adherence to treatments.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(4) : 347-354


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2