Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 is an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial evaluating tumour bed boost and hypofractionation in patients with non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast radiotherapy. Here, we report the effects of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 2 years. METHODS: The BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 trial is ongoing at 118 hospitals in 11 countries. Women aged 18 years or older with completely excised non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ were randomly assigned, by use of a minimisation algorithm, to tumour bed boost or no tumour bed boost, following conventional whole breast radiotherapy or hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy using one of three randomisation categories. Category A was a 4-arm randomisation of tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) versus hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions over 3·5 weeks). Category B was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy, and category C was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. Stratification factors were age at diagnosis, planned endocrine therapy, and treating centre. The primary endpoint, time to local recurrence, will be reported when participants have completed 5 years of follow-up. The HRQOL statistical analysis plan prespecified eight aspects of HRQOL, assessed by four questionnaires at baseline, end of treatment, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after radiotherapy: fatigue and physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30); cosmetic status, breast-specific symptoms, arm and shoulder functional status (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale); body image and sexuality (Body Image Scale); and perceived risk of invasive breast cancer (Cancer Worry Scale and a study-specific question). For each of these measures, tumour bed boost was compared with no boost, and conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy, by use of generalised estimating equation models. Analyses were by intention to treat, with Hochberg adjustment for multiple testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00470236. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2007, and Aug 14, 2013, 1208 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive no tumour bed boost (n=605) or tumour bed boost (n=603). 396 of 1208 women were assigned to category A: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=100) or no boost (n=98), or to hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=98) or no boost (n=100). 447 were assigned to category B: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=223) or no boost (n=224). 365 were assigned to category C: hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=182) or no boost (n=183). All patients were followed up at 2 years for the HRQOL analysis. 1098 (91%) of 1208 patients received their allocated treatment, and most completed their scheduled HRQOL assessments (1147 [95%] of 1208 at baseline; 988 [87%] of 1141 at 2 years). Cosmetic status was worse with tumour bed boost than with no boost across all timepoints (difference 0·10 [95% CI 0·05-0·15], global p=0·00014, Hochberg-adjusted p=0·0016); at the end of treatment, the estimated difference between tumour bed boost and no boost was 0·13 (95% CI 0·06-0·20; p=0·00021), persisting at 24 months (0·13 [0·06-0·20]; p=0·00021). Arm and shoulder function was also adversely affected by tumour bed boost across all timepoints (0·08 [95% CI 0·03-0·13], global p=0·0033, Hochberg adjusted p=0·045); the difference between tumour bed boost and no boost at the end of treatment was 0·08 (0·01 to 0·15, p=0·021), and did not persist at 24 months (0·04 [-0·03 to 0·11], p=0·29). None of the other six prespecified aspects of HRQOL differed significantly after adjustment for multiple testing. Conventional whole breast radiotherapy was associated with worse body image than hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy at the end of treatment (difference -1·10 [95% CI -1·79 to -0·42], p=0·0016). No significant differences were reported in the other PROs between conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Tumour bed boost was associated with persistent adverse effects on cosmetic status and arm and shoulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis is pending. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society.

Randomized trial of decongestive lymphatic therapy for the treatment of lymphedema in women with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Because of its morbidity and chronicity, arm lymphedema remains a concerning complication of breast cancer treatment. Although massage-based decongestive therapy is often recommended, randomized trials have not consistently demonstrated benefit over more conservative measures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women previously treated for breast cancer with lymphedema were enrolled from six institutions. Volumes were calculated from circumference measurements. Patients with a minimum of 10% volume difference between their arms were randomly assigned to either compression garments (control) or daily manual lymphatic drainage and bandaging followed by compression garments (experimental). The primary outcome was percent reduction in excess arm volume from baseline to 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 103 women were randomly assigned, and 95 were evaluable. Mean reduction of excess arm volume was 29.0% in the experimental group and 22.6% in the control group (difference, 6.4%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 20.5%; P = .34). Absolute volume loss was 250 mL and 143 mL in the experimental and control groups, respectively (difference, 107 mL; 95% CI, 13 to 203 mL; P = .03). There was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients losing 50% or greater excess arm volume. Quality of life (Short Form-36 Health Survey) and arm function were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: This trial was unable to demonstrate a significant improvement in lymphedema with decongestive therapy compared with a more conservative approach. The failure to detect a difference may have been a result of the relatively small size of our trial.

Factors that influence the recruitment of patients to Phase III studies in oncology: the perspective of the clinical research associate.

BACKGROUND: The multiple determinants of a patient's decision to enter into a clinical trial have been explored largely from the perspectives of patients and their physicians. Little research has involved clinical research associates (CRAs) formally, despite their central role in the process of recruitment. The current study was initiated to explore the factors that influence the decision of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial entry, specifically from the perspective of the CRA. METHODS: Two focus groups of CRAs from the Hamilton Regional Cancer Center were organized. A skilled facilitator guided both groups through exploratory and subsequent confirmatory phases of discussions, which were audiotaped for review and coding using a process of consensus employing intercoder triangulation. RESULTS: The two groups identified a number of factors that they believed influenced the recruitment process. Numerous physician and patient factors were reaffirmed, such as the impression of the scientific merit of a study or the sense of personal benefit, respectively. More uniquely, CRAs identified information transfer within the informed consent process as a major aspect of their specialized role. It was believed that full disclosure of information, in terms of both the content and the techniques and styles of delivery, was an important predictor of recruitment success. The groups quickly reached consensus on which factors they believed were the most important overall with respect to influencing study recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: CRAs appear to have a unique role in the process of recruiting patients to active clinical trials. They believe that they have an important influence on recruitment success. Further research to validate this impression is required, because, ultimately, a greater understanding of the relative roles of physician and patient factors and, potentially, CRA factors will be important in the development of ethical and supportive strategies to optimize the recruitment of patients with cancer into randomized clinical trials.