Dose-escalated simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy in early breast cancer (IMPORT HIGH): a multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A tumour-bed boost delivered after whole-breast radiotherapy increases local cancer-control rates but requires more patient visits and can increase breast hardness. IMPORT HIGH tested simultaneous integrated boost against sequential boost with the aim of reducing treatment duration while maintaining excellent local control and similar or reduced toxicity. METHODS: IMPORT HIGH is a phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial that recruited women after breast-conserving surgery for pT1-3pN0-3aM0 invasive carcinoma from radiotherapy and referral centres in the UK. Patients were randomly allocated to receive one of three treatments in a 1:1:1 ratio, with computer-generated random permuted blocks used to stratify patients by centre. The control group received 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast and 16 Gy in 8 fractions sequential photon tumour-bed boost. Test group 1 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 48 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. Test group 2 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 53 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. The boost clinical target volume was the clip-defined tumour bed. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse (IBTR) analysed by intention to treat; assuming 5% 5-year incidence with the control group, non-inferiority was predefined as 3% or less absolute excess in the test groups (upper limit of two-sided 95% CI). Adverse events were assessed by clinicians, patients, and photographs. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN47437448, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 4, 2009, and Sept 16, 2015, 2617 patients were recruited. 871 individuals were assigned to the control group, 874 to test group 1, and 872 to test group 2. Median boost clinical target volume was 13 cm3 (IQR 7 to 22). At a median follow-up of 74 months there were 76 IBTR events (20 for the control group, 21 for test group 1, and 35 for test group 2). 5-year IBTR incidence was 1·9% (95% CI 1·2 to 3·1) for the control group, 2·0% (1·2 to 3·2) for test group 1, and 3·2% (2·2 to 4·7) for test group 2. The estimated absolute differences versus the control group were 0·1% (-0·8 to 1·7) for test group 1 and 1·4% (0·03 to 3·8) for test group 2. The upper confidence limit for test group 1 versus the control group indicated non-inferiority for 48 Gy. Cumulative 5-year incidence of clinician-reported moderate or marked breast induration was 11·5% for the control group, 10·6% for test group 1 (p=0·40 vs control group), and 15·5% for test group 2 (p=0·015 vs control group). INTERPRETATION: In all groups 5-year IBTR incidence was lower than the 5% originally expected regardless of boost sequencing. Dose-escalation is not advantageous. 5-year moderate or marked adverse event rates were low using small boost volumes. Simultaneous integrated boost in IMPORT HIGH was safe and reduced patient visits. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade Groups stratify outcomes in the CHHiP Phase 3 prostate radiotherapy trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of Gleason Grade Group (GGG) classification following central pathology review with previous local pathology assessment, and to examine the difference between using overall and worst GGG in a large patient cohort treated with radiotherapy and short-course hormone therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with low- to high-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized into the multicentre CHHiP fractionation trial between 2002 and 2011. Patients received short-course hormone therapy (≤6 month) and radical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Of 2749 consented patients, 1875 had adequate diagnostic biopsy tissue for blinded central pathology review. The median follow-up was 9.3 years. Agreement between local pathology and central pathology-derived GGG and between central pathology-derived overall and worst GGG was assessed using kappa (κ) statistics. Multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare the biochemical/clinical failure (BCF) and distant metastases (DM) outcomes of patients with GGG 1-5. RESULTS: There was poor agreement between local pathology- and central pathology-derived GGG (κ = 0.19) but good agreement between overall and worst GGG on central pathology review (κ = 0.89). Central pathology-derived GGG stratified BCF and DM outcomes better than local pathology, while overall and worst GGG on central pathology review performed similarly. GGG 3 segregated with GGG 4 for BCF, with BCF-free rates of 90%, 82%, 74%, 71% and 58% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years when assessed using overall GGG. There was a progressive decrease in DM-free rates from 98%, 96%, 92%, 88% and 83% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years with overall GGG. Patients (n = 57) who were upgraded from GGG 2-3 using worst GS had BCF-free and DM-free rates of 74% and 92% at 8 years. CHHiP eligibility criteria limit the interpretation of these results. CONCLUSION: Contemporary review of International Society of Urological Pathology GGG successfully stratified patients treated with short-course hormone therapy and IMRT with regard to both BCF-free and DM-free outcomes. Patients upgraded from GGG 2 to GGG 3 using worst biopsy GS segregate with GGG 3 on long-term follow-up. We recommend that both overall and worst GS be used to derive GGG.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. METHODS: These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death). INTERPRETATION: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476).

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

4 Gy versus 24 Gy radiotherapy for follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FoRT): long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal radiotherapy dose for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma is uncertain. We aimed to compare 24 Gy in 12 fractions (representing the standard of care) with 4 Gy in two fractions (low-dose radiation). METHODS: FoRT (Follicular Radiotherapy Trial) is a randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 43 study centres in the UK. We enrolled patients (aged >18 years) with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had histological confirmation of follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma requiring radical or palliative radiotherapy. No limit on performance status was stipulated, and previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy to another site was permitted. Radiotherapy target sites were randomly allocated (1:1) either 24 Gy in 12 fractions or 4 Gy in two fractions using minimisation and stratified by histology, treatment intent, and study centre. Randomisation was centralised through the Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre. Patients, treating clinicians, and investigators were not masked to random assignments. The primary endpoint was time to local progression in the irradiated volume based on clinical and radiological evaluation and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The non-inferiority threshold aimed to exclude the chance that 4 Gy was more than 10% inferior to 24 Gy in terms of local control at 2 years (HR 1·37). Safety (in terms of adverse events) was analysed in patients who received any radiotherapy and who returned an adverse event form. FoRT is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00310167, and the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN65687530, and this report represents the long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2006, and June 8, 2011, 614 target sites in 548 patients were randomly assigned either 24 Gy in 12 fractions (n=299) or 4 Gy in two fractions (n=315). At a median follow-up of 73·8 months (IQR 61·9-88·0), 117 local progression events were recorded, 27 in the 24 Gy group and 90 in the 4 Gy group. The 2-year local progression-free rate was 94·1% (95% CI 90·6-96·4) after 24 Gy and 79·8% (74·8-83·9) after 4 Gy; corresponding rates at 5 years were 89·9% (85·5-93·1) after 24 Gy and 70·4% (64·7-75·4) after 4 Gy (hazard ratio 3·46, 95% CI 2·25-5·33; p<0·0001). The difference at 2 years remains outside the non-inferiority margin of 10% at -13·0% (95% CI -21·7 to -6·9). The most common events at week 12 were alopecia (19 [7%] of 287 sites with 24 Gy vs six [2%] of 301 sites with 4 Gy), dry mouth (11 [4%] vs five [2%]), fatigue (seven [2%] vs five [2%]), mucositis (seven [2%] vs three [1%]), and pain (seven [2%] vs two [1%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our findings at 5 years show that the optimal radiotherapy dose for indolent lymphoma is 24 Gy in 12 fractions when durable local control is the aim of treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify a five-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week that is non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and is as safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Here, we present 5-year results of the FAST-Forward trial. METHODS: FAST-Forward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referring hospitals) in the UK. Patients aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3, pN0-1, M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy were eligible. We randomly allocated patients to either 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks), 27 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week), or 26 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week) to the whole breast or chest wall. Allocation was not masked because of the nature of the intervention. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as ≤1·6% excess for five-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio [HR] of 1·81). Normal tissue effects were assessed by clinicians, patients, and from photographs. This trial is registered at isrctn.com, ISRCTN19906132. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2011, and June 19, 2014, we recruited and obtained consent from 4096 patients from 97 UK centres, of whom 1361 were assigned to the 40 Gy schedule, 1367 to the 27 Gy schedule, and 1368 to the 26 Gy schedule. At a median follow-up of 71·5 months (IQR 71·3 to 71·7), the primary endpoint event occurred in 79 patients (31 in the 40 Gy group, 27 in the 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0·86 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·44) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 0·67 (0·38 to 1·16) for 26 Gy in five fractions. 5-year incidence of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy was 2·1% (1·4 to 3·1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were -0·3% (-1·0 to 0·9) for 27 Gy in five fractions (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule: p=0·0022 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions) and -0·7% (-1·3 to 0·3) for 26 Gy in five fractions (p=0·00019 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions). At 5 years, any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was reported for 98 of 986 (9·9%) 40 Gy patients, 155 (15·4%) of 1005 27 Gy patients, and 121 of 1020 (11·9%) 26 Gy patients. Across all clinician assessments from 1-5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 1·55 (95% CI 1·32 to 1·83, p<0·0001) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 1·12 (0·94 to 1·34, p=0·20) for 26 Gy in five fractions. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effect risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy. INTERPRETATION: 26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week is non-inferior to the standard of 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for local tumour control, and is as safe in terms of normal tissue effects up to 5 years for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair gene aberrations (TOPARP-B): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is enriched in DNA damage response (DDR) gene aberrations. The TOPARP-B trial aims to prospectively validate the association between DDR gene aberrations and response to olaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, investigator-initiated, randomised phase 2 trial following a selection (or pick-the-winner) design, we recruited participants from 17 UK hospitals. Men aged 18 years or older with progressing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with one or two taxane chemotherapy regimens and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less had tumour biopsies tested with targeted sequencing. Patients with DDR gene aberrations were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated minimisation method, with balancing for circulating tumour cell count at screening, to receive 400 mg or 300 mg olaparib twice daily, given continuously in 4-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to dose allocation. The primary endpoint of confirmed response was defined as a composite of all patients presenting with any of the following outcomes: radiological objective response (as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), a decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 50% or more (PSA50) from baseline, or conversion of circulating tumour cell count (from ≥5 cells per 7·5 mL blood at baseline to <5 cells per 7·5 mL blood). A confirmed response in a consecutive assessment after at least 4 weeks was required for each component. The primary analysis was done in the evaluable population. If at least 19 (43%) of 44 evaluable patients in a dose cohort responded, then the dose cohort would be considered successful. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of olaparib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682772. Recruitment for the trial has completed and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 711 patients consented for targeted screening between April 1, 2015, and Aug 30, 2018. 161 patients had DDR gene aberrations, 98 of whom were randomly assigned and treated (49 patients for each olaparib dose), with 92 evaluable for the primary endpoint (46 patients for each olaparib dose). Median follow-up was 24·8 months (IQR 16·7-35·9). Confirmed composite response was achieved in 25 (54·3%; 95% CI 39·0-69·1) of 46 evaluable patients in the 400 mg cohort, and 18 (39·1%; 25·1-54·6) of 46 evaluable patients in the 300 mg cohort. Radiological response was achieved in eight (24·2%; 11·1-42·3) of 33 evaluable patients in the 400 mg cohort and six (16·2%; 6·2-32·0) of 37 in the 300 mg cohort; PSA50 response was achieved in 17 (37·0%; 23·2-52·5) of 46 and 13 (30·2%; 17·2-46·1) of 43; and circulating tumour cell count conversion was achieved in 15 (53·6%; 33·9-72·5) of 28 and 13 (48·1%; 28·7-68·1) of 27. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in both cohorts was anaemia (15 [31%] of 49 patients in the 300 mg cohort and 18 [37%] of 49 in the 400 mg cohort). 19 serious adverse reactions were reported in 13 patients. One death possibly related to treatment (myocardial infarction) occurred after 11 days of treatment in the 300 mg cohort. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib has antitumour activity against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DDR gene aberrations, supporting the implementation of genomic stratification of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in clinical practice. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Prostate Cancer UK, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres Network, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres.

Partial-breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery for patients with early breast cancer (UK IMPORT LOW trial): 5-year results from a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Local cancer relapse risk after breast conservation surgery followed by radiotherapy has fallen sharply in many countries, and is influenced by patient age and clinicopathological factors. We hypothesise that partial-breast radiotherapy restricted to the vicinity of the original tumour in women at lower than average risk of local relapse will improve the balance of beneficial versus adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. METHODS: IMPORT LOW is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK. Women aged 50 years or older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of grade 1-3, with a tumour size of 3 cm or less (pT1-2), none to three positive axillary nodes (pN0-1), and minimum microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more, were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 40 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy (control), 36 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy and 40 Gy to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy to the partial breast only (partial-breast group) in 15 daily treatment fractions. Computer-generated random permuted blocks (mixed sizes of six and nine) were used to assign patients to groups, stratifying patients by radiotherapy treatment centre. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. Field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered using standard tangential beams that were simply reduced in length for the partial-breast group. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral local relapse (80% power to exclude a 2·5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the local relapse hazard ratio [HR] was less than 2·03), analysed by intention to treat. Safety analyses were done in all patients for whom data was available (ie, a modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN12852634. FINDINGS: Between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, 2018 women were recruited. Two women withdrew consent for use of their data in the analysis. 674 patients were analysed in the whole-breast radiotherapy (control) group, 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 669 in the partial-breast group. Median follow-up was 72·2 months (IQR 61·7-83·2), and 5-year estimates of local relapse cumulative incidence were 1·1% (95% CI 0·5-2·3) of patients in the control group, 0·2% (0·02-1·2) in the reduced-dose group, and 0·5% (0·2-1·4) in the partial-breast group. Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the control group were -0·73% (-0·99 to 0·22) for the reduced-dose and -0·38% (-0·84 to 0·90) for the partial-breast groups. Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, and was confirmed by the test against the critical HR being more than 2·03 (p=0·003 for the reduced-dose group and p=0·016 for the partial-breast group, compared with the whole-breast radiotherapy group). Photographic, patient, and clinical assessments recorded similar adverse effects after reduced-dose or partial-breast radiotherapy, including two patient domains achieving statistically significantly lower adverse effects (change in breast appearance [p=0·007 for partial-breast] and breast harder or firmer [p=0·002 for reduced-dose and p<0·0001 for partial-breast]) compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy compared with the standard whole-breast radiotherapy in terms of local relapse in a cohort of patients with early breast cancer, and equivalent or fewer late normal-tissue adverse effects were seen. This simple radiotherapy technique is implementable in radiotherapy centres worldwide. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

4 Gy versus 24 Gy radiotherapy for patients with indolent lymphoma (FORT): a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Follicular lymphoma has been shown to be highly radiosensitive with responses to doses as low as 4 Gy in two fractions. This trial was designed to explore the dose response for follicular lymphoma comparing 4 Gy in two fractions with 24 Gy in 12 fractions METHODS: FORT is a prospective randomised, unblinded, phase 3 non-inferiority study comparing radiotherapy given as 4 Gy in two fractions with a standard dose of 24 Gy in 12 fractions. Entry criteria included all patients aged over 18 years, having local radiotherapy for radical or palliative local control, with follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma, who had received no previous treatment for at least 1 month before. The primary outcome was time to local progression analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Randomisation was centralised through the Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre. Radiotherapy target sites were randomised (1:1) with minimisation stratified by histology (follicular lymphoma vs marginal zone lymphoma), treatment intent (palliative or curative) and centre. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310167. FINDINGS: 299 sites were randomly assigned to 24 Gy and 315 sites to 4 Gy between April 7, 2006, and June 8, 2011, at 43 centres in the UK. After a median follow-up of 26 months (range 0·39-75·4), 91 local progressions had been recorded (21 in the 24 Gy group and 70 in the 4 Gy group). Time to local progression with 4 Gy was not non-inferior to 24 Gy (hazard ratio 3·42, 95% CI 2·09-5·55, p<0·0001). Eight (3%) of 282 patients in the 24 Gy group and four (1%) of 300 in the 4 Gy group had acute grade 3-4 toxic effects. Four (1%) patients in the 24 Gy group and four (1%) patients in the 4 Gy group had late toxic effects. Mucositis was the most common event in the 24 Gy group (two patients with acute mucositis and two with late mucositis; all grade 3) and was not reported in the 4 Gy group. The most common acute effect was pain at the site of irradiation (two patients in the 4 Gy group, one patient in the 24 Gy group; all grade 3), and the most common late effect was fatigue (two patients in the 4 Gy group, one patient in the 24 Gy group; all grade 3). INTERPRETATION: 24 Gy in 12 fractions is the more effective radiation schedule for indolent lymphoma and should be regarded as the standard of care. However, 4 Gy remains a useful alternative for palliative treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to compare dose-escalated conformal radiotherapy with control-dose conformal radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Preliminary findings reported after 5 years of follow-up showed that escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy improved biochemical progression-free survival. Based on the sample size calculation, we planned to analyse overall survival when 190 deaths occurred; this target has now been reached, after a median 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: RT01 was a phase 3, open-label, international, randomised controlled trial enrolling men with histologically confirmed T1b-T3a, N0, M0 prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen of less than 50 ng/mL. Patients were randomly assigned centrally in a 1:1 ratio, using a computer-based minimisation algorithm stratifying by risk of seminal vesicle invasion and centre to either the control group (64 Gy in 32 fractions, the standard dose at the time the trial was designed) or the escalated-dose group (74 Gy in 37 fractions). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. All patients received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for 3-6 months before the start of conformal radiotherapy, which continued until the end of conformal radiotherapy. The coprimary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival and overall survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment-related side-effects have been reported previously. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN47772397. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 1998, and Dec 20, 2001, 862 men were registered and 843 subsequently randomly assigned: 422 to the escalated-dose group and 421 to the control group. As of Aug 2, 2011, 236 deaths had occurred: 118 in each group. Median follow-up was 10·0 years (IQR 9·1-10·8). Overall survival at 10 years was 71% (95% CI 66-75) in each group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·77-1·28; p=0·96). Biochemical progression or progressive disease occurred in 391 patients (221 [57%] in the control group and 170 [43%] in the escalated-dose group). At 10 years, biochemical progression-free survival was 43% (95% CI 38-48) in the control group and 55% (50-61) in the escalated-dose group (HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·56-0·84; p=0·0003). INTERPRETATION: At a median follow-up of 10 years, escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy showed an advantage in biochemical progression-free survival, but this advantage did not translate into an improvement in overall survival. These efficacy data for escalated-dose treatment must be weighed against the increase in acute and late toxicities associated with the escalated dose and emphasise the importance of use of appropriate modern radiotherapy methods to reduce side-effects. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Effect of radium-223 dichloride on symptomatic skeletal events in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases: results from a phase 3, double-blind, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases frequently cause skeletal events in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) selectively targets bone metastases with high-energy, short-range α-particles. We assessed the effect of radium-223 compared with placebo in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised ALSYMPCA trial, we enrolled patients who had symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with two or more bone metastases and no known visceral metastases, who were receiving best standard of care, and had previously either received or were unsuitable for docetaxel. Patients were stratified by previous docetaxel use, baseline total alkaline phosphatase level, and current bisphosphonate use, then randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either six intravenous injections of radium-223 (50 kBq/kg) or matching placebo; one injection was given every 4 weeks. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system, taking into account trial stratification factors. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which has been reported previously. Here we report on time to first symptomatic skeletal event, defined as the use of external beam radiation to relieve bone pain, or occurrence of a new symptomatic pathological fracture (vertebral or non-verterbal), or occurence of spinal cord compression, or tumour-related orthopeadic surgical intervention. All events were required to be clinically apparent and were not assessed by periodic radiological review. Statistical analyses of symptomatic skeletal events were based on the intention-to-treat population. The study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699751. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2008, and Feb 1, 2011, 921 patients were enrolled, of whom 614 (67%) were randomly assigned to receive radium-223 and 307 (33%) placebo. Symptomatic skeletal events occurred in 202 (33%) of 614 patients in the radium-223 group and 116 (38%) of 307 patients in the placebo group. Time to first symptomatic skeletal event was longer with radium-223 than with placebo (median 15·6 months [95% CI 13·5-18·0] vs 9·8 months [7·3-23·7]; hazard ratio [HR]=0·66, 95% CI 0·52-0·83; p=0·00037). The risks of external beam radiation therapy for bone pain (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·85) and spinal cord compression (HR=0·52, 95% CI 0·29-0·93) were reduced with radium-233 compared with placebo. Radium-223 treatment did not seem to significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic pathological bone fracture (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·35-1·09), or the need for tumour-related orthopaedic surgical intervention (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·28-1·82). INTERPRETATION: Radium-223 should be considered as a treatment option for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases. FUNDING: Algeta and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5-61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6-9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2-8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2-5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0-2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years. FUNDING: Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

The Fraction Size Sensitivity of Late Genitourinary Toxicity: Analysis of Alpha/Beta (α/ß) Ratios in the CHHiP Trial.

PURPOSE: Moderately hypofractionated external beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer is now standard-of-care. Normal tissue toxicity responses to fraction size alteration are nonlinear: the linear-quadratic model is a widely used framework accounting for this, through the α/ß ratio. Few α/ß ratio estimates exist for human late genitourinary endpoints; here we provide estimates derived from a hypofractionation trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CHHiP trial randomized 3216 men with localized prostate cancer 1:1:1 between conventionally fractionated intensity modulated RT (74 Gy/37 fractions (Fr)) and 2 moderately hypofractionated regimens (60 Gy/20 Fr and 57 Gy/19 Fr). RT plan and suitable follow-up assessment was available for 2206 men. Three prospectively assessed clinician-reported toxicity scales were amalgamated for common genitourinary endpoints: dysuria, hematuria, incontinence, reduced flow/stricture, and urine frequency. Per endpoint, only patients with baseline zero toxicity were included. Three models for endpoint grade ≥1 (G1+) and G2+ toxicity were fitted: Lyman Kutcher-Burman (LKB) without equivalent dose in 2 Gy/Fr (EQD2) correction [LKB-NoEQD2]; LKB with EQD2-correction [LKB-EQD2]; LKB-EQD2 with dose-modifying-factor (DMF) inclusion [LKB-EQD2-DMF]. DMFs were age, diabetes, hypertension, pelvic surgery, prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), overall treatment time and acute genitourinary toxicity (G2+). Bootstrapping generated 95% confidence intervals and unbiased performance estimates. Models were compared by likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: The LKB-EQD2 model significantly improved performance over LKB-NoEQD2 for just 3 endpoints: dysuria G1+ (α/ß = 2.0 Gy; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.2 Gy), hematuria G1+ (α/ß = 0.9 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-2.2 Gy) and hematuria G2+ (α/ß = 0.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-1.7 Gy). For these 3 endpoints, further incorporation of 2 DMFs improved on LKB-EQD2: acute genitourinary toxicity and prior TURP (hematuria G1+ only), but α/ß ratio estimates remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of EQD2-correction significantly improved model fitting for dysuria and hematuria endpoints, where fitted α/ß ratio estimates were low: 0.6 to 2 Gy. This suggests therapeutic gain for clinician-reported GU toxicity, through hypofractionation, might be lower than expected by typical late α/ß ratio assumptions of 3 to 5 Gy.

Gastrointestinal Toxicity Prediction Not Influenced by Rectal Contour or Dose-Volume Histogram Definition.

PURPOSE: Rectal dose delivered during prostate radiation therapy is associated with gastrointestinal toxicity. Treatment plans are commonly optimized using rectal dose-volume constraints, often whole-rectum relative-volumes (%). We investigated whether improved rectal contouring, use of absolute-volumes (cc), or rectal truncation might improve toxicity prediction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients from the CHHiP trial (receiving 74 Gy/37 fractions [Fr] vs 60 Gy/20 Fr vs 57 Gy/19 Fr) were included if radiation therapy plans were available (2350/3216 patients), plus toxicity data for relevant analyses (2170/3216 patients). Whole solid rectum relative-volumes (%) dose-volume-histogram (DVH), as submitted by treating center (original contour), was assumed standard-of-care. Three investigational rectal DVHs were generated: (1) reviewed contour per CHHiP protocol; (2) original contour absolute volumes (cc); and (3) truncated original contour (2 versions; ±0 and ±2 cm from planning target volume [PTV]). Dose levels of interest (V30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 74 Gy) in 74 Gy arm were converted by equivalent-dose-in-2 Gy-Fr (EQD2α/ß= 3 Gy) for 60 Gy/57 Gy arms. Bootstrapped logistic models predicting late toxicities (frequency G1+/G2+, bleeding G1+/G2+, proctitis G1+/G2+, sphincter control G1+, stricture/ulcer G1+) were compared by area-undercurve (AUC) between standard of care and the 3 investigational rectal definitions. RESULTS: The alternative dose/volume parameters were compared with the original relative-volume (%) DVH of the whole rectal contour, itself fitted as a weak predictor of toxicity (AUC range, 0.57-0.65 across the 8 toxicity measures). There were no significant differences in toxicity prediction for: (1) original versus reviewed rectal contours (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .21-.98); (2) relative- versus absolute-volumes (AUCs, 0.56-0.63; P = .07-.91); and (3) whole-rectum versus truncation at PTV ± 2 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.65; P = .05-.99) or PTV ± 0 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .27-.98). CONCLUSIONS: We used whole-rectum relative-volume DVH, submitted by the treating center, as the standard-of-care dosimetric predictor for rectal toxicity. There were no statistically significant differences in prediction performance when using central rectal contour review, with the use of absolute-volume dosimetry, or with rectal truncation relative to PTV. Whole-rectum relative-volumes were not improved upon for toxicity prediction and should remain standard-of-care.

One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT.

Background: FAST-Forward aimed to identify a 5-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy delivered in 1 week that was non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and as safe as the standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Published acute toxicity and 5-year results are presented here with other aspects of the trial. Design: Multicentre phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3pN0-1M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (3 weeks), 27 Gy or 26 Gy in 5 fractions (1 week) whole breast/chest wall (Main Trial). Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio = 1.81). Normal tissue effects were assessed independently by clinicians, patients and photographs. Sub-studies: Two acute skin toxicity sub-studies were undertaken to confirm safety of the test schedules. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade ≥ 3 acute breast skin toxicity at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Nodal Sub-Study patients had breast/chest wall plus axillary radiotherapy testing the same three schedules, reduced to the 40 and 26 Gy groups on amendment, with the primary endpoint of 5-year patient-reported arm/hand swelling. Limitations: A sequential hypofractionated or simultaneous integrated boost has not been studied. Participants: Ninety-seven UK centres recruited 4096 patients (1361:40 Gy, 1367:27 Gy, 1368:26 Gy) into the Main Trial from November 2011 to June 2014. The Nodal Sub-Study recruited an additional 469 patients from 50 UK centres. One hundred and ninety and 162 Main Trial patients were included in the acute toxicity sub-studies. Results: Acute toxicity sub-studies evaluable patients: (1) acute grade 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity reported in 40 Gy/15 fractions 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5 fractions 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5 fractions 3/52 (5.8%). (2) Grade 3 common toxicity criteria for adverse effects toxicity reported for one patient. At 71-month median follow-up in the Main Trial, 79 ipsilateral breast tumour relapse events (40 Gy: 31, 27 Gy: 27, 26 Gy: 21); hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) versus 40 Gy were 27 Gy: 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44), 26 Gy: 0.67 (0.38 to 1.16). With 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1) 5-year incidence ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy, estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy (non-inferiority test) were -0.3% (-1.0-0.9) for 27 Gy (p = 0.0022) and -0.7% (-1.3-0.3) for 26 Gy (p = 0.00019). Five-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast normal tissue effects was 40 Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27 Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26 Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1 to 5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy were 1.55 (1.32 to 1.83; p < 0.0001) for 27 Gy and 1.12 (0.94-1.34; p = 0.20) for 26 Gy. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effects risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy. Nodal Sub-Study reported no arm/hand swelling in 80% and 77% in 40 Gy and 26 Gy at baseline, and 73% and 76% at 24 months. The prevalence of moderate/marked arm/hand swelling at 24 months was 10% versus 7% for 40 Gy compared with 26 Gy. Interpretation: Five-year local tumour incidence and normal tissue effects prevalence show 26 Gy in 5 fractions in 1 week is a safe and effective alternative to 40 Gy in 15 fractions for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Future work: Ten-year Main Trial follow-up is essential. Inclusion in hypofractionation meta-analysis ongoing. A future hypofractionated boost trial is strongly supported. Trial registration: FAST-Forward was sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and was registered as ISRCTN19906132. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/01/47) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Patients diagnosed with early breast cancer are often recommended to have radiotherapy after surgery because research has shown that it lowers the risk of the cancer returning. However, it may cause some short- and long-term side effects. Previous clinical trials showed that the same, or even better, outcomes with a lower total dose of radiotherapy given in fewer, larger daily doses compared with older historical treatment schedules. The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded FAST-Forward Trial aimed to see whether the number of doses could be reduced further without reducing the beneficial effects of radiotherapy. Between November 2011 and June 2014, 4096 patients agreed to take part in the FAST-Forward Main Trial testing three schedules of radiotherapy to the breast. Standard treatment given on 15 days over 3 weeks (Control Group) was compared with two different lower dose schedules where treatment was given on 5 days over 1 week (lower dose Test Groups). An additional 469 patients entered a sub-study where the gland area under the arm also received radiotherapy (Nodal Sub-Study). Main Trial 5-year results reported in April 2020 showed that the number of patients whose cancer had returned in the treated breast was low in all groups: around 2 in 100 (2.1%) for the Control Group, and 1.7% in the higher dose and 1.4% in the lower dose Test Groups. The majority of reported side effects assessed by patients and doctors up to 5 years after radiotherapy were mild for all treatment groups. Patients in the Control Group and in the lower dose Test Group experienced similar levels of side effects. More side effects were reported in the higher dose Test Group, although differences were small. Overall, the FAST-Forward findings suggest that the lower dose 1-week schedule gave similar results in terms of the cancer returning and side effects to the standard 3-week treatment and this schedule can now be used to help treat future patients.

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION: ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

Chemoradiotherapy in Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: 10-yr Follow-up of the Phase 3 Randomised Controlled BC2001 Trial.

BACKGROUND: BC2001, the largest randomised trial of bladder-sparing treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), demonstrated improvement in locoregional control by adding fluorouracil and mitomycin C to radiotherapy (James ND, Hussain SA, Hall E, et al. Radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1477-88). There are limited data on long-term recurrence risk. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether benefit of adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy for MIBC is maintained in the long term. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 3 randomised controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial was conducted. Between 2001 and 2008, 458 patients with T2-T4a N0M0 MIBC were enrolled; 360 were randomised to radiotherapy (178) or chemoradiotherapy (182), and 218 were randomised to standard whole-bladder radiotherapy (108) or reduced high-dose-volume radiotherapy (111). The median follow-up time was 9.9 yr. The trial is registered (ISRCTN68324339). INTERVENTION: Radiotherapy: 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 wk or 64 Gy in 32 fractions over 6.5 wk; concurrent chemotherapy: 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Locoregional control (primary endpoint), invasive locoregional control, toxicity, rate of salvage cystectomy, disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), bladder cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival. Cox regression was used. The analysis of efficacy outcomes was by intention to treat. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Chemoradiotherapy improved locoregional control (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.43-0.86], p = 0.004) and invasive locoregional control (HR 0.55 [95% CI 0.36-0.84], p = 0.006). This benefit translated, albeit nonsignificantly, for disease-related outcomes: DFS (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.60-1.02], p = 0.069), MFS (HR 0.78, [95% CI 0.58-1.05], p = 0.089), overall survival (HR = 0.88 [95% CI 0.69-1.13], p = 0.3), and BCSS (HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.59-1.06], p = 0.11). The 5-yr cystectomy rate was 14% (95% CI 9-21%) with chemoradiotherapy versus 22% (95% CI 16-31%) with radiotherapy alone (HR 0.54, [95% CI 0.31-0.95], p = 0.034). No differences were seen between standard and reduced high-dose-volume radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term findings confirm the benefit of adding concomitant 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C to radiotherapy for MIBC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at long-term outcomes of a phase 3 clinical trial testing radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy for patients with invasive bladder cancer. We concluded that the benefit of adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy was maintained over 10 yr.

Nonrandomized Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Bicalutamide Compared With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Analogs in Combination With Radiation Therapy in the CHHiP Trial.

PURPOSE: CHHiP is a randomized trial evaluating moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Of all participants, 97% of them had concurrent short-course hormone therapy (HT), either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa) or 150 mg of bicalutamide daily. This exploratory analysis compares efficacy and side effects in a nonrandomized comparison. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In our study, 2700 patients received LHRHa and 403 received bicalutamide. The primary endpoint was biochemical/clinical failure. Groups were compared with Cox regression adjusted for various prognostic factors and stratified by radiation therapy dose. A key secondary endpoint was erectile dysfunction (ED) assessed by clinicians (using scores from Late Effects on Normal Tissues: Subjective/Objective/Management [LENT-SOM] subjective erectile function for vaginal penetration) and patients (single items within the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index [UCLA PCI] and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-50 questionnaires) at 2 years and compared between HT regimens by χ2 trend test. RESULTS: Bicalutamide patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs 69 years LHRHa). Median follow-up was 9.3 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure with an adjusted hazard ratio or 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.23; P = .8). At 2 years, grade ≥2 LENT-SOM ED was reported in significantly more LHRHa patients (313 out of 590; 53%) versus bicalutamide (17 out of 68; 25%) (P < .0001). There were no differences in ED seen with UCLA-PCI and EPIC-50 questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized comparison, there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy according to type of HT received. Bicalutamide preserved clinician assessed (LENT-SOM) erectile function at 2 years but patient-reported outcomes were similar between groups.