Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (UK TACT2; CRUK/05/19): quality of life results from a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early breast cancer improves outcomes but its toxicity affects patients' quality of life (QOL). The UK TACT2 trial investigated whether accelerated epirubicin improves time to recurrence and if oral capecitabine is non-inferior to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) for efficacy with less toxicity. Results showed no benefit for accelerated epirubicin and capecitabine was non-inferior. As part of the QOL substudy, we aimed to assess the effect of chemotherapies on psychological distress, physical symptoms, and functional domains. METHODS: TACT2 was a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial done in 129 UK centres. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative invasive primary breast cancer, who had undergone complete excision, and due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to four cycles of 100 mg/m2 epirubicin either every 3 weeks (standard epirubicin) or every 2 weeks with 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle (accelerated epirubicin), followed by four 4-week cycles of either CMF (600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide intravenously on days 1 and 8 or 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-14; 40 mg/m2 methotrexate intravenously on days 1 and 8; and 600 mg/m2 fluorouracil intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle) or four 3-week cycles of 2500 mg/m2 capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 given twice daily on days 1-14 of each cycle). The randomisation schedule was computer generated in random permuted blocks, stratified by centre, number of nodes involved (none vs 1-3 vs ≥4), age (≤50 years vs >50 years), and planned endocrine treatment (yes vs no). QOL was one of the secondary outcomes and is reported here. All patients from a subset of 44 centres were invited to complete QOL questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS] and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module [QLQ-C30] and Quality of Life Questionnaire breast module [QLQ-BR23]) at baseline, end of standard or accelerated epirubicin, end of CMF or capecitabine, and at 12 and 24 months after randomisation. The QOL substudy prespecified two coprimary QOL outcomes assessed in the intention-to-treat population: overall QOL (reported elsewhere) and HADS total score. Prespecified secondary QOL outcomes were EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales of physical function, role function, and fatigue and EORTC QLQ-BR23 subscales of sexual function and systemic therapy side-effects. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN68068041, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00301925. FINDINGS: From Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (20 [0·5%] of whom were male) were enrolled in TACT2; 1281 (85·8%) of 1493 eligible patients were included in the QOL substudy. Eight (0·6%) participants in the QOL substudy were male and 1273 (99·4%) were female. Median follow-up was 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9). Analysis was performed on the complete QOL dataset (as of Sept 15, 2011) when all participants had passed the 24-month timepoint. Prerandomisation questionnaires were completed by 1172 (91·5%) patients and 1179 (92·0%) completed at least one postrandomisation questionnaire. End-of-treatment HADS depression score (p=0·0048) and HADS total change score (p=0·0093) were worse for CMF versus capecitabine. Accelerated epirubicin led to worse physical function (p=0·0065), role function (p<0·0001), fatigue (p=0·0002), and systemic side-effects (p=0·0001), but not sexual function (p=0·36), compared with standard epirubicin during treatment, but the effect did not persist. Worse physical function (p=0·0048), sexual function (p=0·0053), fatigue (p<0·0001), and systemic side-effects (p<0·0001), but not role functioning (p=0·013), were seen for CMF versus capecitabine at end of treatment; these differences persisted at 12 months and 24 months. INTERPRETATION: Accelerated epirubicin was associated with worse QOL than was standard epirubicin but only during treatment. These findings will help patients and clinicians make an informed choice about accelerated chemotherapy. CMF had worse QOL effects than did capecitabine, which were persistent for 24 months. The favourable capecitabine QOL compared with CMF supports its use as an adjuvant option after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.

Cost-effectiveness of 5 fraction and partial breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer in the UK: model-based multi-trial analysis.

PURPOSE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of 4 radiotherapy modalities to treat early breast cancer in the UK. In a subgroup of patients eligible for all modalities, we compared whole-breast (WB) and partial breast (PB) radiotherapy delivered in either 15 (WB15F, PB15F) or 5 fractions (WB5F, PB5F). In a subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy, we compared WB15F to WB5F. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model to simulate lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each modality. This was informed by the clinical analysis of two non-inferiority trials (FAST Forward and IMPORT LOW) and supplemented with external literature. The primary analysis assumed that radiotherapy modality influences health only through its impact on locoregional recurrence and radiotherapy-related adverse events. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, PB5F had the least cost and greatest expected QALYs. WB5F had the least cost and the greatest expected QALYs in those only eligible for WB radiotherapy. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15,000/QALY, there was a 62% chance that PB5F was the cost-effective alternative in the PB eligible group, and there was a 100% chance that WB5F was cost-effective in the subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionation to 5 fractions and partial breast radiotherapy modalities offer potentially important benefits to the UK health system.

Aromatase inhibition plus/minus Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in advanced breast cancer therapy (ARISTACAT): a randomised phase II study.

PURPOSE: The development of oestrogen resistance is a major challenge in managing hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer. Saracatinib (AZD0530), an oral Src kinase inhibitor, prevents oestrogen resistance in animal models and reduces osteoclast activity. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of saracatinib addition to aromatase inhibitors (AI) in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This phase II multicentre double-blinded randomised trial allocated post-menopausal women to AI with either saracatinib or placebo (1:1 ratio). Patients were stratified into an "AI-sensitive/naïve" group who received anastrozole and "prior-AI" group who received exemestane. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: 140 patients were randomised from 20 UK centres to saracatinib/AI (n = 69) or placebo/AI (n = 71). Saracatinib was not associated with an improved PFS (3.7 months v. 5.6 months placebo/AI) and did not reduce likelihood of bony progression. There was no benefit in OS or ORR. Effects were consistent in "AI-sensitive/naive" and "prior-AI" sub-groups. Saracatinib was well tolerated with dose reductions in 16% and the main side effects were gastrointestinal, hypophosphatemia and rash. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib did not improve outcomes in post-menopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. There was no observed beneficial effect on bone metastases. CRUKE/11/023, ISRCTN23804370.

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus recommendations on patient selection and dose and fractionation for external beam radiotherapy in early breast cancer.

High-quality randomised clinical trials testing moderately fractionated breast radiotherapy have clearly shown that local control and survival is at least as effective as with 2 Gy daily fractions with similar or reduced normal tissue toxicity. Fewer treatment visits are welcomed by patients and their families, and reduced fractions produce substantial savings for health-care systems. Implementation of hypofractionation, however, has moved at a slow pace. The oncology community have now reached an inflection point created by new evidence from the FAST-Forward five-fraction randomised trial and catalysed by the need for the global radiation oncology community to unite during the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly rethink hypofractionation implementation. The aim of this paper is to support equity of access for all patients to receive evidence-based breast external beam radiotherapy and to facilitate the translation of new evidence into routine daily practice. The results from this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus state that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy can be offered to any patient for whole breast, chest wall (with or without reconstruction), and nodal volumes. Ultrafractionation (five fractions) can also be offered for non-nodal breast or chest wall (without reconstruction) radiotherapy either as standard of care or within a randomised trial or prospective cohort. The consensus is timely; not only is it a pragmatic framework for radiation oncologists, but it provides a measured proposal for the path forward to influence policy makers and empower patients to ensure equity of access to evidence-based radiotherapy.

Comparison of CT-volumed supraclavicular fossa radiotherapy planning and conventional simulator-planned defined by bony landmarks for early breast cancer.

AIM: A comparison of techniques, CT planning of the supraclavicular fossa and field based simulation. We highlight CT planned SCF radiotherapy which would be useful for a centre introducing the technique. BACKGROUND: Development of radiotherapy technique includes a move from field-based simulation to CT planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the first 50 patients receiving radiotherapy according to the 3D CT planning protocol. Production of the previous field based technique, by virtual simulation methods on the same 50 patient CT data sets allowed both techniques to be compared for beam energy, field size, planning target volume (PTV) minimum and maximum, mean doses, depth dose normalisation, V40% lung volume and brachial plexus. RESULTS: 88% CT-volumed plans received mean dose within ICRU recommended limits compared with only 8% using previous conventional technique. 76% required 10 MV to improve coverage and one patient (2%) an opposed posterior field. The mean normalisation depth was 4.5 cm (range 1.9-7.7 cm) compared with pre-set 3 cm of the conventional technique. With CT-volumed technique the whole lung volume exposed to V40%, including the tangential fields, reduced from 10.79% to 9.64% (p < 0.001) but the mean maximum brachial plexus dose increased from 48.9 Gy to 51.6 Gy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dose coverage of the SCF PTV was greatly improved for plans produced from 3DCT volumes compared to field based techniques.

Hypofractionation: The standard for external beam breast irradiation.

This overview provides the historical perspective of external beam breast hypofractionation over the last 50 years. It highlights the serious harm suffered by patients with breast cancer in the 1970's and 1980's because of new hypofractionation regimens based on a theoretical radiobiology model being adopted into clinical practice to solve a resource issue without testing within clinical trials and without the essential radiotherapy quality assurance. It then describes the high-quality clinical trials comparing 3-week with 5-week standard of care regimens that were initiated based on a strong scientific rationale for hypofractionation in breast cancer. Today, there are still challenges with universal implementation of the results of these moderate hypofractionation studies, but there is now a substantial body of evidence to support 3-week breast radiotherapy with several large randomised trials still to report. The limit of breast hypofractionation is then explored and randomised trials investigating 1-week radiotherapy are described. This approach is now standard of care in many countries for whole or partial breast radiotherapy and chest wall radiotherapy without immediate reconstruction. It also has the advantage of reducing burden of treatment for patients and providing cost-effective care. Further research is needed to establish the safety and efficacy of 1-week breast locoregional radiotherapy and following immediate breast reconstruction. In addition, clinical studies are required to determine how a tumour bed boost for patients with breast cancer at higher risk of relapse can be incorporated simultaneously into a 1-week radiotherapy schedule. As such, the breast hypofractionation story is still unfolding.

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.

The challenge of equipoise: qualitative interviews exploring the views of health professionals and women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer on recruitment to a surgical randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: A multicentre feasibility trial (MIAMI), comparing outcomes and quality of life of women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer randomised to therapeutic mammoplasty or mastectomy, was conducted from September 2018 to March 2020. The MIAMI surgical trial aimed to investigate recruitment of sufficient numbers of women. Multidisciplinary teams at 10 breast care centres in the UK identified 190 with MIBC diagnosis; 20 were eligible for trial participation but after being approached only four patients were recruited. A nested qualitative study sought to understand the reasons for this lack of recruitment. METHODS: Interviews were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020 with 17 staff from eight hospital-based breast care centres that recruited and attempted to recruit to MIAMI; and seven patients from four centres, comprising all patients who were recruited to the trial and some who declined to take part. Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymised and analysed using thematic methods of building codes into themes and sub-themes using the process of constant comparison. RESULTS: Overarching themes of (1) influences on equipoise and recruitment and (2) effects of a lack of equipoise were generated. Within these themes, health professional themes described the barriers to recruitment as 'the treatment landscape has changed', 'staff preferences and beliefs' which influenced equipoise and patient advice; and how different the treatments were for patients. Patient themes of 'altruism and timing of trial approach', 'influences from consultants and others' and 'diagnostic journey doubts' all played a part in whether patients agreed to take part in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to recruiting to breast cancer surgical trials can be significant, especially where there are substantial differences between the treatments being offered and a lack of equipoise communicated by healthcare professionals to patients. Patients can become overwhelmed by numerous requests for participation in research trials and inappropriate timing of trial discussions. Alternative study designs to the gold standard randomised control trial for surgical interventions may be required to provide the high-quality evidence on which to base practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ( ISRCTN17987569 ) registered on April 20, 2018, and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03514654 ).

Combined Perioperative Lapatinib and Trastuzumab in Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Identifies Early Responders: Randomized UK EPHOS-B Trial Long-Term Results.

PURPOSE: EPHOS-B aimed to determine whether perioperative anti-HER2 therapy inhibited proliferation and/or increased apoptosis in HER2-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase II, two-part, multicenter trial included newly diagnosed women with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer due to undergo surgery. Patients were randomized to: part 1 (1:2:2), no treatment (control), trastuzumab or lapatinib; part 2 (1:1:2) control, trastuzumab, or lapatinib and trastuzumab combination. Treatment was given for 11 days presurgery. Coprimary endpoints were change in Ki67 and apoptosis between baseline and surgery tumor samples (biologic response: ≥30% change). Central pathology review scored residual cancer burden (RCB). Relapse-free survival (RFS) explored long-term effects. RESULTS: Between November 2010 and September 2015, 257 patients were randomized (part 1: control 22, trastuzumab 57, lapatinib 51; part 2: control 29, trastuzumab 32, combination 66). Ki67 response was evaluable for 223 patients: in part 1 Ki67 response occurred in 29/44 (66%) lapatinib versus 18/49 (37%) trastuzumab (P = 0.007) and 1/22 (5%) control (P < 0.0001); in part 2 in 36/49 (74%) combination versus 14/31 (45%) trastuzumab (P = 0.02) and 2/28 (7%) control (P < 0.0001). No significant increase in apoptosis after 11 days was seen in treatment groups. Six patients achieved complete pathologic response (pCR, RCB0) and 13 RCB1, all but two in the combination group. After 6 years median follow-up, 28 (11%) had recurrence and 19 (7%) died. No recurrences or deaths were observed among patients who achieved a pCR. Ki67% falls ≥50% associated with fewer recurrences (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Early response after short duration anti-HER2 dual therapy identifies cancers dependent on the HER2 pathway providing a strategy for exploring risk-adapted individualized treatment de-escalation.

Breast Cancer Management Guidelines During COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 has brought about complex challenges in healthcare delivery. With the new rules of lockdown and social distancing and with resources diverted to the management of COVID-19, there are difficulties in continuing usual cancer care. Patients are at risk of contracting COVID-19 with a high chance of patient to healthcare transmission and vice versa. Hospital visits, investigations and all modalities of treatment have potential complications that put patients at risk, some more than others. In this situation, there is a need to change our approach in the management of breast cancer to deliver it safely. We present modified guidelines based on the available consensus statements and evidence.

Ten-Year Results of FAST: A Randomized Controlled Trial of 5-Fraction Whole-Breast Radiotherapy for Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Previous studies of hypofractionated adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer established a 15- or 16-fraction (fr) regimen as standard. The FAST Trial (CRUKE/04/015) evaluated normal tissue effects (NTE) and disease outcomes after 5-fr regimens. Ten-year results are presented. METHODS: Women ≥ 50 years of age with low-risk invasive breast carcinoma (pT1-2 pN0) were randomly assigned to 50 Gy/25 fr (5 weeks) or 30 or 28.5 Gy in 5 once-weekly fr of 6.0 or 5.7 Gy. The primary end point was change in photographic breast appearance at 2 and 5 years; secondary end points were physician assessments of NTE and local tumor control. Odds ratios (ORs) from longitudinal analyses compared regimens. RESULTS: A total of 915 women were recruited from 18 UK centers (2004-2007). Five-year photographs were available for 615/862 (71%) eligible patients. ORs for change in photographic breast appearance were 1.64 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.49; P = .019) for 30 Gy and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.71; P = .686) for 28.5 Gy versus 50 Gy. α/ß estimate for photographic end point was 2.7 Gy (95% CI, 1.5 to 3.9 Gy), giving a 5-fr schedule of 28 Gy (95% CI, 26 to 30 Gy) estimated to be isoeffective with 50 Gy/25 fr. ORs for any moderate/marked physician-assessed breast NTE (shrinkage, induration, telangiectasia, edema) were 2.12 (95% CI, 1.55 to 2.89; P < .001) for 30 Gy and 1.22 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.72; P = .248) for 28.5 Gy versus 50 Gy. With 9.9 years median follow-up, 11 ipsilateral breast cancer events (50 Gy: 3; 30 Gy: 4; 28.5 Gy: 4) and 96 deaths (50 Gy: 30; 30 Gy: 33; 28.5 Gy: 33) have occurred. CONCLUSION: At 10 years, there was no significant difference in NTE rates after 28.5 Gy/5 fr compared with 50 Gy/25 fr, but NTE were higher after 30 Gy/5 fr. Results confirm the published 3-year findings that a once-weekly 5-fr schedule of whole-breast radiotherapy can be identified that appears to be radiobiologically comparable for NTE to a conventionally fractionated regimen.

Capivasertib Plus Paclitaxel Versus Placebo Plus Paclitaxel As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: The PAKT Trial.

PURPOSE: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT signaling pathway is frequently activated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The AKT inhibitor capivasertib has shown preclinical activity in TNBC models, and drug sensitivity has been associated with activation of PI3K or AKT and/or deletions of PTEN. The PAKT trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding capivasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II trial recruited women with untreated metastatic TNBC. A total of 140 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either capivasertib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo (days 2-5, 9-12, 16-19) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), PFS and OS in the subgroup with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations, tumor response, and safety. RESULTS: Median PFS was 5.9 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 4.2 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.08; 1-sided P = .06 [predefined significance level, 1-sided P = .10]). Median OS was 19.1 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 12.6 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; 2-sided P = .04). In patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors (n = 28), median PFS was 9.3 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 3.7 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.79; 2-sided P = .01). The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events in those treated with capivasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, were diarrhea (13% v 1%), infection (4% v 1%), neutropenia (3% v 3%), rash (4% v 0%), and fatigue (4% v 0%). CONCLUSION: Addition of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy for TNBC resulted in significantly longer PFS and OS. Benefits were more pronounced in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors. Capivasertib warrants further investigation for treatment of TNBC.

Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Nelipepimut-S Vaccine to Prevent Breast Cancer Recurrence: A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: In phase I/II studies, nelipepimut-S (NP-S) plus GM-CSF vaccine was well tolerated and effectively raised HER2-specific immunity in patients with breast cancer. Results from a prespecified interim analysis of a phase III trial assessing NP-S + GM-CSF are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase III study enrolled females ≥18 years with T1-T3, HER2 low-expressing (IHC 1+/2+), node-positive breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Patients received 1,000 µg NP-S + 250 µg GM-CSF or placebo + GM-CSF monthly for 6 months, then every 6 months through 36 months. The primary objective was disease-free survival (DFS). Protocol-specified imaging occurred annually. New abnormalities were categorized as recurrence events; biopsy confirmation was not mandated. The interim analysis was conducted as specified in the protocol after 73 DFS events. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients (mean age 51.8 years) were randomized. Adverse events were similar between groups; most common were injection-associated: erythema (84.3%), induration (55.8%), and pruritus (54.9%). There was no significant between-arms difference in DFS events at interim analysis at median follow-up (16.8 months). In the NP-S arm, imaging detected 54.1% of recurrence events in asymptomatic patients versus 29.2% in the placebo arm (P = 0.069). CONCLUSIONS: NP-S was well tolerated. There was no significant difference in DFS events between NP-S and placebo. Use of mandated annual scans and image-detected recurrence events hastened the interim analysis contributing to early trial termination.