Patient-reported satisfaction with thermal water-based cosmetic products in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a feasibility study

• Chemotherapy causes skin toxicity affecting quality of life • Thermal water cosmetics showed high satisfaction and adherence • Potential benefit in managing chemo-induced skin symptoms • No comparator used; results require cautious interpretation • Larger studies with validated outcomes are needed Chemotherapy and radiotherapy often lead to cutaneous toxicities, which can significantly affect the quality of life of breast cancer patients. Dermatologic side effects of chemotherapy remain an unexplored area of supportive oncology care. This feasibility study aims to assess the patient’s satisfaction and tolerability of thermal water-based cosmetic products for managing chemotherapy-induced skin problems. This prospective, single-center feasibility study included 30 women with non-metastatic breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Patients were provided with thermal water-based body care products during chemotherapy and spa therapy. Feasibility was assessed by evaluating satisfaction, compliance, and tolerability using visual analogue scales and self-reported questionnaires at the end of chemotherapy (primary) and spa treatment (secondary). At the end of chemotherapy, the mean satisfaction score was 7.52 (n=23), and after spa treatment, it was 7.15 (n=13). Compliance rates were 83% during chemotherapy and 54% during spa treatment. Notably, 64% of patients reported improvement in dermatological side effects, including dryness and tightness. Additionally, 69% of patients expressed interest in continuing the use of the products. Thermal water-based cosmetic products demonstrated good satisfaction rate among breast cancer patient with good compliance, tolerability, and moisturizing effects. These findings support the feasibility of the study and suggest a potential benefit of thermal water-based cosmetics in managing chemotherapy-induced skin toxicities. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as no comparator and no validated dermatologic measures were used. Further studies with robust methodology (i.e., larger sample sizes, comparator and validated dermatologic measures) are needed.