New clinical and biological insights from the international TARGIT-A randomised trial of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial reported risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy for breast cancer to be as effective as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Here, we present further detailed analyses. METHODS: In total, 2298 women (≥45 years, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤3.5 cm, cN0-N1) were randomised. We investigated the impact of tumour size, grade, ER, PgR, HER2 and lymph node status on local recurrence-free survival, and of local recurrence on distant relapse and mortality. We analysed the predictive factors for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT as part of the risk-adapted approach, using regression modelling. Non-breast cancer mortality was compared between TARGIT-IORT plus EBRT vs. EBRT. RESULTS: Local recurrence-free survival was no different between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT, in every tumour subgroup. Unlike in the EBRT arm, local recurrence in the TARGIT-IORT arm was not a predictor of a higher risk of distant relapse or death. Our new predictive tool for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT is at https://targit.org.uk/addrt . Non-breast cancer mortality was significantly lower in the TARGIT-IORT arm, even when patients received supplemental EBRT, HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.88) P = 0.0091. CONCLUSION: TARGIT-IORT is as effective as EBRT in all subgroups. Local recurrence after TARGIT-IORT, unlike after EBRT, has a good prognosis. TARGIT-IORT might have a beneficial abscopal effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741 (21/7/2004), NCT00983684 (24/9/2009).

Long term survival and local control outcomes from single dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy (TARGIT-IORT) for early breast cancer: TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer. DESIGN: Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING: 32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes. RESULTS: Between 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 v 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 v 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.

Effect of Delayed Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy vs Whole-Breast Radiotherapy on Local Recurrence and Survival: Long-term Results From the TARGIT-A Randomized Clinical Trial in Early Breast Cancer.

Importance: Conventional adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer given daily for several weeks is onerous and expensive. Some patients may be obliged to choose a mastectomy instead, and some may forgo radiotherapy altogether. We proposed a clinical trial to test whether radiotherapy could be safely limited to the tumor bed. Objective: To determine whether delayed second-procedure targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) is noninferior to whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in terms of local control. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, randomized (1:1 ratio) noninferiority trial, 1153 patients aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma smaller than 3.5 cm treated with breast conservation were enrolled from 28 centers in 9 countries. Data were locked in on July 3, 2019. Interventions: The TARGIT-A trial was started in March 2000; patients were randomized after needle biopsy to receive TARGIT-IORT immediately after lumpectomy under the same anesthetic vs EBRT and results have been shown to be noninferior. A parallel study, described in this article, was initiated in 2004; patients who had their cancer excised were randomly allocated using separate randomization tables to receive EBRT or delayed TARGIT-IORT given as a second procedure by reopening the lumpectomy wound. Main Outcomes and Measures: A noninferiority margin for local recurrence rate of 2.5% at 5 years, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: Overall, 581 women (mean [SD] age, 63 [7] years) were randomized to delayed TARGIT-IORT and 572 patients (mean [SD] age, 63 [8] years) were randomized to EBRT. Sixty patients (5%) had tumors larger than 2 cm, or had positive nodes and only 32 (2.7%) were younger than 50 years. Delayed TARGIT-IORT was not noninferior to EBRT. The local recurrence rates at 5-year complete follow-up were: delayed TARGIT-IORT vs EBRT (23/581 [3.96%] vs 6/572 [1.05%], respectively; difference, 2.91%; upper 90% CI, 4.4%). With long-term follow-up (median [IQR], 9.0 [7.5-10.5] years), there was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-1.003; P = .052), mastectomy-free survival (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.65-1.18; P = .38), distant disease-free survival (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.72-1.39; P = .98), or overall survival (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.35; P = .80). Conclusions and Relevance: These long-term data show that despite an increase in the number of local recurrences with delayed TARGIT-IORT, there was no statistically significant decrease in mastectomy-free survival, distant disease-free survival, or overall survival. Trial Registration: ISRCTN34086741, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00983684.

Circulating Tumour Cells (CTC), Head and Neck Cancer and Radiotherapy; Future Perspectives.

Head and neck cancer is the seventh most common cancer in Australia and globally. Despite the current improved treatment modalities, there is still up to 50⁻60% local regional recurrence and or distant metastasis. High-resolution medical imaging technologies such as PET/CT and MRI do not currently detect the early spread of tumour cells, thus limiting the potential for effective minimal residual detection and early diagnosis. Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are a rare subset of cells that escape from the primary tumour and enter into the bloodstream to form metastatic deposits or even re-establish themselves in the primary site of the cancer. These cells are more aggressive and accumulate gene alterations by somatic mutations that are the same or even greater than the primary tumour because of additional features acquired in the circulation. The potential application of CTC in clinical use is to acquire a liquid biopsy, by taking a reliable minimally invasive venous blood sample, for cell genotyping during radiotherapy treatment to monitor the decline in CTC detectability, and mutational changes in response to radiation resistance and radiation sensitivity. Currently, very little has been published on radiation therapy, CTC, and circulating cancer stem cells (CCSCs). The prognostic value of CTC in cancer management and personalised medicine for head and neck cancer radiotherapy patients requires a deeper understanding at the cellular level, along with other advanced technologies. With this goal, this review summarises the current research of head and neck cancer CTC, CCSC and the molecular targets for personalised radiotherapy response.

Patient preferences for adjuvant radiotherapy in early breast cancer are strongly influenced by treatment received through random assignment.

OBJECTIVE: TARGIT-A randomised women with early breast cancer to receive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT). This study aimed to identify what extra risk of recurrence patients would accept for perceived benefits and risks of different radiotherapy treatments. METHODS: Patient preferences were determined by self-rated trade-off questionnaires in two studies: Stage (1) 209 TARGIT-A participants (TARGIT-IORTn = 108, EBRTn = 101); Stage (2) 123 non-trial patients yet to receive radiotherapy (pre-treatment group), with 85 also surveyed post-radiotherapy. Patients traded-off risks of local recurrence in preference selection between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT. RESULTS: TARGIT-IORT patients were more accepting of IORT than EBRT patients with 60% accepting the highest increased risk presented (4%-6%) compared to 12% of EBRT patients, and 2% not accepting IORT at all compared to 43% of EBRT patients. Pre-treatment patients were more accepting of IORT than post-treatment patients with 23% accepting the highest increased risk presented compared to 15% of post-treatment patients, and 15% not accepting IORT at all compared to 41% of pre-treatment patients. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients yet to receive radiotherapy accept a higher recurrence risk than the actual risk found in TARGIT-A. Measured patient preferences are highly influenced by experience of treatment received. This finding challenges the validity of post-treatment preference studies.

Cosmetic outcome as rated by patients, doctors, nurses and BCCT.core software assessed over 5 years in a subset of patients in the TARGIT-A Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to assess agreement between four rating systems of cosmetic outcome measured in a subset of patients with early breast cancer participating in the randomised TARGIT-A trial. TARGIT-A compared risk-adapted single-dose intra-operative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) to whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: Patients, their Radiation Oncologist and Research Nurse completed a subjective cosmetic assessment questionnaire before radiotherapy and annually thereafter for five years. Objective data previously calculated by the validated BCCT.core software which utilizes digital photographs to score symmetry, colour and scar was also used. Agreement was assessed by the Kappa statistic and longitudinal changes were assessed by generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Overall, an Excellent-Good (EG) cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair-Poor (FP) result for both treatment groups across all time points, with patients who received TARGIT-IORT scoring EG more often than those who received EBRT however this was statistically significant at Year 5 only. There was modest agreement between the four rating systems with the highest Kappa score being moderate agreement which was between nurse and doctor scores at Year 1 with Kappa = 0.46 (p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.24, 0.68). CONCLUSION: Despite similar overall findings between treatment groups and rating systems, the inter-rater agreement was only modest. This suggests that the four rating systems utilized may not necessarily be used interchangeably and it is arguable that for an outcome such as cosmetic appearance, the patient's point of view is the most important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TARGIT-A ISRCTN34086741 , Registered 21 July 2004, retrospectively registered.

Participating in an International Stereotactic Radiotherapy Patient Registry: The Establishment of Data Collection Pathways.

Aim To describe data collection pathways and practical challenges experienced by an academic comprehensive cancer centre aiming to record clinical data for patients being treated with a novel radiotherapy treatment modality. Methods Various options to capture data from all patients treated with the CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (SCGH) in Western Australia were explored. An international multicenter web-based secure database established and maintained by the Radiosurgery Society the RSSearch® Patient Registry was selected. Data were collected and entered over four contiguous phases, with either opt-in or opt-out consent and the completion of Patient Reported Outcome questionnaires for specific sub-groups. Results Between April 2014 and June 2016, 461 patients at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital were enrolled in the RSSearch® Patient Registry with the collection of over 17,500 data items. From 461 patients enrolled, 447 patients were treated with the CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System. The majority of patients were treated for either a malignant primary (43.2%) or metastatic disease (39.4%). The establishment of matrix organisational processes for data collection led to the development of improved workflow patterns and data collection pathways. Conclusions This article describes the processes developed by a single centre to establish an efficient system for data collection and participation in an international registry. The opt-out approach was more efficient in terms of patient recruitment compared to the informed-consent method used in earlier phases. The experience of this single centre may help inform other institutions considering data collection options for assessments of new or novel treatments.

Cosmesis and Breast-Related Quality of Life Outcomes After Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: A Substudy of the TARGIT-A Trial.

PURPOSE: To report the first comprehensive investigation of patient-reported cosmesis and breast-related quality of life (QOL) outcomes comparing patients randomized to risk-adapted single-dose intraoperative radiation therapy (TARGIT-IORT) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) on the TARGIT-A trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Longitudinal cosmesis and QOL data were collected from a subset of TARGIT-A participants who received TARGIT-IORT as a separate procedure (postpathology). Patients completed a cosmetic assessment before radiation therapy and annually thereafter for at least 5 years. Patients also completed the combined European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire and Breast-Specific Module in addition to the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire at baseline and annually thereafter. The combined EORTC questionnaires were also collected 3, 6, and 9 months after wide local excision. RESULTS: An Excellent-Good cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair-Poor result for both treatment groups across all time points. The TARGIT-IORT patients reported better breast-related QOL than EBRT patients. Statistically and clinically significant differences were seen at month 6 and year 1, with EBRT patients having moderately worse breast symptoms (a statistically significant difference of more than 10 in a 100-point scale) than TARGIT-IORT patients at these time points. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with TARGIT-IORT on the TARGIT-A trial have similar self-reported cosmetic outcome but better breast-related QOL outcomes than patients treated with EBRT. This important evidence can facilitate the treatment decision-making process for patients who have early breast cancer suitable for breast-conserving surgery and inform their clinicians.

Environmental and social benefits of the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: data from UK TARGIT-A trial centres and two UK NHS hospitals offering TARGIT IORT.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the journeys and CO2 emissions if women with breast cancer are treated with risk-adapted single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) rather than several weeks' course of external beam whole breast radiotherapy (EBRT) treatment. SETTING: (1) TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial (ISRCTN34086741) which compared TARGIT with traditional EBRT and found similar breast cancer control, particularly when TARGIT was given simultaneously with lumpectomy, (2) 2 additional UK centres offering TARGIT. PARTICIPANTS: 485 UK patients (249 TARGIT, 236 EBRT) in the prepathology stratum of TARGIT-A trial (where randomisation occurred before lumpectomy and TARGIT was delivered simultaneously with lumpectomy) for whom geographical data were available and 22 patients treated with TARGIT after completion of the TARGIT-A trial in 2 additional UK breast centres. OUTCOME MEASURES: The shortest total journey distance, time and CO2 emissions from home to hospital to receive all the fractions of radiotherapy. METHODS: Distances, time and CO2 emissions were calculated using Google Maps and assuming a fuel efficiency of 40 mpg. The groups were compared using the Student t test with unequal variance and the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test. RESULTS: TARGIT patients travelled significantly fewer miles: TARGIT 21 681, mean 87.1 (SE 19.1) versus EBRT 92 591, mean 392.3 (SE 30.2); had lower CO2 emissions 24.7 kg (SE 5.4) vs 111 kg (SE 8.6) and spent less time travelling: 3 h (SE 0.53) vs 14 h (SE 0.76), all p<0.0001. Patients treated with TARGIT in 2 hospitals in semirural locations were spared much longer journeys (753 miles, 30 h, 215 kg CO2 per patient). CONCLUSIONS: The use of TARGIT intraoperative radiotherapy for eligible patients with breast cancer significantly reduces their journeys for treatment and has environmental benefits. If widely available, 5 million miles (8 000 000 km) of travel, 170 000 woman-hours and 1200 tonnes of CO2 (a forest of 100 hectares) will be saved annually in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN34086741; Post-results.

Theoretical versus Ex Vivo Assessment of Radiation Damage Repair: An Investigation in Normal Breast Tissue.

In vivo validation of models of DNA damage repair will enable their use for optimizing clinical radiotherapy. In this study, a theoretical assessment was made of DNA double-strand break (DSB) induction in normal breast tissue after intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), which is now an accepted form of adjuvant radiotherapy for selected patients with early breast cancer. DSB rates and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) were calculated as a function of dose, radiation quality and dose rate, each varying based on the applicator size used during IORT. The spectra of primary electrons in breast tissue adjacent to each applicator were calculated using measured X-ray spectra and Monte Carlo methods, and were used to inform a Monte Carlo damage simulation code. In the absence of repair, asymptotic RBE values (relative to (60)Co) were approximately 1.5. Beam-quality changes led to only minor variations in RBE among applicators, though differences in dose rate and overall dose delivery time led to larger variations and a rapid decrease in RBE. An experimental assessment of DSB induction was performed ex vivo using pre- and postirradiation tissue samples from patients receiving breast intraoperative radiation therapy. Relative DSB rates were assessed via γ-H2AX immunohistochemistry using proportional staining. Maximum-likelihood parameter estimation yielded a DSB repair halftime of 25.9 min (95% CI, 21.5-30.4 min), although the resulting model was not statistically distinguishable from one where there was no change in DSB yield among patients. Although the model yielded an in vivo repair halftime of the order of previous estimates for in vitro repair halftimes, we cannot conclude that it is valid in this context. This study highlights some of the uncertainties inherent in population analysis of ex vivo samples, and of the quantitative limitations of immunohistochemistry for assessment of DSB repair.

Intraoperative radiotherapy for early breast cancer: do health professionals choose convenience or risk?

BACKGROUND: The randomized TARGIT trial comparing experimental intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) to up to 7 weeks of daily conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) recruited participants in Western Australia between 2003 and 2012. We aimed to understand preferences for this evolving radiotherapy treatment for early breast cancer (EBC) in health professionals, and how they changed over time and in response to emerging data. Preferences for single dose IORT or EBRT for EBC were elicited in 2004 and 2011, together with factors that may be associated with these preferences. METHODS: Western Australian health professionals working with breast cancer patients were invited to complete a validated, self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire used hypothetical scenarios and trade-off methodology to determine the maximum increase in risk of local recurrence health professionals were willing to accept in order to have a single dose of IORT in the place of EBRT if they were faced with this decision themselves. RESULTS: Health professional characteristics were similar across the two time points although 2011 included a higher number of nurse (49% vs. 36%) and allied health (10% vs. 4%) participants and a lower number of radiation therapists (17% vs. 32% ) compared to 2004.Health professional preferences varied, with 7.5% and 3% judging IORT unacceptable at any risk, 18% and 21% judging IORT acceptable only if offering an equivalent risk, 56% and 59% judging IORT acceptable with a low maximum increase in risk (1-3%) and 19% and 17% judging a high maximum increase in risk acceptable (4-5%), in 2004 and 2011 respectively. A significantly greater number of nurses accepted IORT as a treatment option in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: Most Western Australian health professionals working with breast cancer patients are willing to accept an increase in risk of local recurrence in order to replace EBRT with IORT in a hypothetical setting. This finding was consistent over two time points spanning 7 years despite the duration of clinical experience with IORT and the publication of the early clinical results of IORT in 2010. These results need to be compared with preferences elicited from patient groups, and further investigation into the impact of personal preferences on health professionals' advice to patients is warranted.

Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. METHODS: TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12-52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1-5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7-2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1-4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5-2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0-9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6-4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5-4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1-3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8-2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3-5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7-5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9-7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Objective assessment of cosmetic outcome after targeted intraoperative radiotherapy in breast cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial.

The international randomised targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) trial has demonstrated evidence of non-inferiority between the novel technique of TARGIT (intra-operative radiotherapy with Intrabeam(®)) and conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in women with early breast cancer in terms of the primary outcome measure of risk of local relapse within the treated breast. Cosmesis is an increasingly important outcome of breast conserving treatment with both surgery and radiotherapy contributing to this. It was unknown if the single high dose of TARGIT may lead to damaging fibrosis and thus impair cosmesis further, so we objectively evaluated the aesthetic outcome of patients within the TARGIT randomised controlled trial. We have used an objective assessment tool for evaluation of cosmetic outcome. Frontal digital photographs were taken at baseline (before TARGIT or EBRT) and yearly thereafter for up to 5 years. The photographs were analysed by BCCT.core, a validated software which produces a composite score based on symmetry, colour and scar. 342 patients were assessed, median age at baseline 64 years (IQR 59-68). The scores were dichotomised into Excellent and Good (EG), and Fair and Poor (FP). There were statistically significant increases in the odds of having an outcome of EG for patients in the TARGIT group relative to the EBRT group at year 1 (OR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.12-3.85, p = 0.021) and year 2 (OR 2.11, 95 % CI 1.0-4.45, p = 0.05). Following a totally objective assessment in a randomised setting, the aesthetic outcome of patients demonstrates that those treated with TARGIT have a superior cosmetic result to those patients who received conventional external beam radiotherapy.

Long-term results of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (Targit) boost during breast-conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: We have previously shown that delivering targeted radiotherapy to the tumour bed intraoperatively is feasible and desirable. In this study, we report on the feasibility, safety, and long-term efficacy of TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (Targit), using the Intrabeam system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 300 cancers in 299 unselected patients underwent breast-conserving surgery and Targit as a boost to the tumor bed. After lumpectomy, a single dose of 20 Gy was delivered intraoperatively. Postoperative external beam whole-breast radiotherapy excluded the usual boost. We also performed a novel individualized case control (ICC) analysis that computed the expected recurrences for the cohort by estimating the risk of recurrence for each patient using their characteristics and follow-up period. RESULTS: The treatment was well tolerated. The median follow up was 60.5 months (range, 10-122 months). Eight patients have had ipsilateral recurrence: 5-year Kaplan Meier estimate for ipsilateral recurrence is 1.73% (SE 0.77), which compares well with that seen in the boosted patients in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer study (4.3%) and the UK STAndardisation of breast RadioTherapy study (2.8%). In a novel ICC analysis of 242 of the patients, we estimated that there should be 11.4 recurrences; in this group, only 6 recurrences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Lumpectomy and Targit boost combined with external beam radiotherapy results in a low local recurrence rate in a standard risk patient population. Accurate localization and the immediacy of the treatment that has a favorable effect on tumour microenvironment may contribute to this effect. These long-term data establish the long-term safety and efficacy of the Targit technique and generate the hypothesis that Targit boost might be superior to an external beam boost in its efficacy and justifies a randomized trial.

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer in patients in whom external beam radiation is not possible.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) following wide local excision of the primary tumor is the standard treatment in early breast cancer. In some circumstances this procedure is not possible or is contraindicated or difficult. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) when EBRT is not feasible. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We report our experience with TARGIT in three centers (Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom) between 1999 and 2008. Patients at these centers received a single radiation dose of 20 Gy to the breast tissue in contact with the applicator (or 6 Gy at 1-cm distance), as they could not be given EBRT and were keen to avoid mastectomy. RESULTS: Eighty patients were treated with TARGIT. Reasons for using TARGIT were 21 patients had previously received EBRT, and 31 patients had clinical reasons such as systemic lupus erythematosus, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease, ankylosing spondylitis, morbid obesity, and cardiovascular or severe respiratory disease. Three of these patients received percutaneous radiotherapy without surgery; 28 patients were included for compelling personal reasons, usually on compassionate grounds. After a median follow-up of 38 months, only two local recurrences were observed, an annual local recurrence rate of 0.75% (95% confidence interval, 0.09%-2.70%). CONCLUSIONS: While we await the results of the randomized trial (over 2,000 patients have already been recruited), TARGIT is an acceptable option but only in highly selected cases that cannot be recruited in the trial and in whom EBRT is not feasible/possible.

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: After breast-conserving surgery, 90% of local recurrences occur within the index quadrant despite the presence of multicentric cancers elsewhere in the breast. Thus, restriction of radiation therapy to the tumour bed during surgery might be adequate for selected patients. We compared targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with the conventional policy of whole breast external beam radiotherapy. METHODS: Having safely piloted the new technique of single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with Intrabeam, we launched the TARGIT-A trial on March 24, 2000. In this prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma undergoing breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from 28 centres in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive targeted intraoperative radiotherapy or whole breast external beam radiotherapy, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy. Neither patients nor investigators or their teams were masked to treatment assignment. Postoperative discovery of predefined factors (eg, lobular carcinoma) could trigger addition of external beam radiotherapy to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (in an expected 15% of patients). The primary outcome was local recurrence in the conserved breast. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 2.5% in the primary endpoint. All randomised patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: 1113 patients were randomly allocated to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 1119 were allocated to external beam radiotherapy. Of 996 patients who received the allocated treatment in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group, 854 (86%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy only and 142 (14%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy plus external beam radiotherapy. 1025 (92%) patients in the external beam radiotherapy group received the allocated treatment. At 4 years, there were six local recurrences in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and five in the external beam radiotherapy group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence in the conserved breast at 4 years was 1.20% (95% CI 0.53-2.71) in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 0.95% (0.39-2.31) in the external beam radiotherapy group (difference between groups 0.25%, -1.04 to 1.54; p=0.41). The frequency of any complications and major toxicity was similar in the two groups (for major toxicity, targeted intraoperative radiotherapy, 37 [3.3%] of 1113 vs external beam radiotherapy, 44 [3.9%] of 1119; p=0.44). Radiotherapy toxicity (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3) was lower in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group (six patients [0.5%]) than in the external beam radiotherapy group (23 patients [2.1%]; p=0.002). INTERPRETATION: For selected patients with early breast cancer, a single dose of radiotherapy delivered at the time of surgery by use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy should be considered as an alternative to external beam radiotherapy delivered over several weeks. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) yields very low recurrence rates when given as a boost.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery were offered boost radiotherapy with targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) using the Intrabeam system to test the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the new approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We treated 302 cancers in 301 unselected patients. This was not a low-risk group. One-third of patients (98/301) were younger than 51 years of age. More than half of the tumors (172, 57%) were between 1 cm and 2 cm, and one-fifth (62, 21%) were >2 cm; 29% (86) had a Grade 3 tumor and, in 29% (87), axillary lymph nodes contained metastasis. After primary surgery, 20 Gy was delivered intraoperatively to the surface of the tumor bed, followed by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), but excluding the usual boost. RESULTS: The treatment was well tolerated. The follow-up ranged from 3 to 80 months (164 and 90 patients completed 2 and 3 years follow-up, respectively). Four patients (1.3%) had local recurrence. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence is 2.6% (SE = 1.7) at 5 years. This compares favorably with the 4.3% recurrence rate in boosted patients from the EORTC boost study, in which only 8.1% patients were node-positive, as opposed to 29% in our series. CONCLUSION: Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy combined with EBRT results in a low local recurrence rate. This could be attributed to both accurate targeting and timeliness of the treatment. These data support the need for a randomized trial to test whether the TARGIT boost is superior to conventional external boost, especially in high-risk women.

Prospective trial of intraoperative radiation treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A new device, Intrabeam, is available for intraoperative radiotherapy. We have prospectively examined its feasibility and tolerability in delivering adjuvant breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Thirty-five patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery received targeted tumour bed irradiation consisting of 5 Gy (at 10 mm) in a single fraction. This single intraoperative treatment was used to replace the external beam radiotherapy "boost" that would usually be given in 10 daily treatments following 5 weeks of whole breast irradiation. Patients later completed external beam radiotherapy as usual. Potential toxicities were prospectively assessed fortnightly prior to external beam radiotherapy, weekly during it, and 3 monthly subsequently. RESULTS: The intraoperative radiotherapy was able to be delivered without difficulty, either at time of initial cancer surgery or as a second procedure. When performed as a separate procedure the median operating time was 56 min. The treatment was well tolerated, with only one patient experiencing any grade 3 or 4 toxicities--this was acute grade three itch. There was an overall early breast infection rate of 17%. No unexpected toxicities were seen. CONCLUSIONS: This simple and well-tolerated treatment delivers a useful radiation dose to the area of highest risk of tumour recurrence. The early infection rate is similar to that reported in the literature, for treatments without intraoperative radiotherapy. Whether such a treatment may adequately replace the entire adjuvant radiation therapy treatment for low-risk patients is now being studied in a randomized trial.