Bridging pre-surgical endocrine therapy for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the B-MaP-C study.

PURPOSE: The B-MaP-C study investigated changes to breast cancer care that were necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we present a follow-up analysis of those patients commenced on bridging endocrine therapy (BrET), whilst they were awaiting surgery due to reprioritisation of resources. METHODS: This multicentre, multinational cohort study recruited 6045 patients from the UK, Spain and Portugal during the peak pandemic period (Feb-July 2020). Patients on BrET were followed up to investigate the duration of, and response to, BrET. This included changes in tumour size to reflect downstaging potential, and changes in cellular proliferation (Ki67), as a marker of prognosis. RESULTS: 1094 patients were prescribed BrET, over a median period of 53 days (IQR 32-81 days). The majority of patients (95.6%) had strong ER expression (Allred score 7-8/8). Very few patients required expedited surgery, due to lack of response (1.2%) or due to lack of tolerance/compliance (0.8%). There were small reductions in median tumour size after 3 months' treatment duration; median of 4 mm [IQR - 20, 4]. In a small subset of patients (n = 47), a drop in cellular proliferation (Ki67) occurred in 26 patients (55%), from high (Ki67 ≥ 10%) to low (< 10%), with at least one month's duration of BrET. DISCUSSION: This study describes real-world usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy as necessitated by the pandemic. BrET was found to be tolerable and safe. The data support short-term (≤ 3 months) usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy. Longer-term use should be investigated in future trials.

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study.

BACKGROUND: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated 'standard' or 'COVID-altered', in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. FINDINGS: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had 'COVID-altered' management. 'Bridging' endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2-9%) using 'NHS Predict'. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of 'COVID-altered' management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.

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.

Comparing long-term local recurrence rates of surgical and non-surgical management of close anterior margins in breast conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: While it is known that histologically involved margins lead to a higher local recurrence rate, re-excision of anterior margins is less common than that of radial margins. However, there are minimal long-term data on the oncological safety of non-surgical management of anterior margins. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent breast conserving surgery for breast cancer between 2000 and 2008 at two tertiary referral centres. A close margin was defined as disease within two mm of the resection margin (including disease at the margin). RESULTS: 6922 patients underwent surgery for invasive or in situ breast cancer of whom 277 patients had a close anterior margin alone after breast conserving surgery. Two hundred and twenty patients had non-surgical management of their margins, while 57 had re-excision surgery. Overall, there were 4/57 local recurrences in the surgical management group and 12/220 in the non-surgical management group. The local recurrence-free survival rate at 5 years was 98.2% (1 recurrence, 95% CI 87.8-99.7) in the surgical management group and 97.2% (6 recurrences, 95% CI 93.8-98.7) in the non-surgical management group. At 10 years, the rates were 92.2% (4 recurrences, 95% CI 80.3-97.0) in the surgical management group and 93.9% (12 recurrences, 95% CI 89.4-96.5) in the non-surgical management group. There was no significant difference found in the local recurrence rate between management groups (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.40, 3.85; p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Local recurrence rates are acceptable and similar in both the surgically and non-surgically managed groups. Non-surgical management of close anterior margins appears oncologically safe when combined with appropriate adjuvant therapy.

Opportunities and priorities for breast surgical research.

The 2013 Breast Cancer Campaign gap analysis established breast cancer research priorities without a specific focus on surgical research or the role of surgeons on breast cancer research. This Review aims to identify opportunities and priorities for research in breast surgery to complement the 2013 gap analysis. To identify these goals, research-active breast surgeons met and identified areas for breast surgery research that mapped to the patient pathway. Areas included diagnosis, neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, adjuvant therapy, and attention to special groups (eg, those receiving risk-reducing surgery). Section leads were identified based on research interests, with invited input from experts in specific areas, supported by consultation with members of the Association of Breast Surgery and Independent Cancer Patients' Voice groups. The document was iteratively modified until participants were satisfied that key priorities for surgical research were clear. Key research gaps included issues surrounding overdiagnosis and treatment; optimising treatment options and their selection for neoadjuvant therapies and subsequent surgery; reducing rates of re-operations for breast-conserving surgery; generating evidence for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breast reconstruction, and mechanisms for assessing novel interventions; establishing optimal axillary management, especially post-neoadjuvant treatment; and defining and standardising indications for risk-reducing surgery. We propose strategies for resolving these knowledge gaps. Surgeons are ideally placed for a central role in breast cancer research and should foster a culture of engagement and participation in research to benefit patients and health-care systems. Development of infrastructure and surgical research capacity, together with appropriate allocation of research funding, is needed to successfully address the key clinical and translational research gaps that are highlighted in this Review within the next two decades.

When are breast cancer patients at highest risk of venous thromboembolism? A cohort study using English health care data.

Patients with breast cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly in the peridiagnosis period. However, no previous epidemiologic studies have investigated the relative impact of breast cancer treatments in a time-dependent manner. We aimed to determine the impact of breast cancer stage, biology, and treatment on the absolute and relative risks of VTE by using several recently linked data sources from England. Our cohort comprised 13,202 patients with breast cancer from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Cancer Registry data) diagnosed between 1997 and 2006 with follow-up continuing to the end of 2010. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine which demographic, treatment-related, and biological factors independently affected VTE risk. Women had an annual VTE incidence of 6% while receiving chemotherapy which was 10.8-fold higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2-14.4; absolute rate [AR], 59.6 per 1000 person-years) than that in women who did not receive chemotherapy. After surgery, the risk was significantly increased in the first month (hazard ratio [HR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4; AR, 23.5; reference group, no surgery), but the risk was not increased after the first month. Risk of VTE was noticeably higher in the 3 months after initiation of tamoxifen compared with the risk before therapy (HR, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.3-12.7; AR, 24.1); however, initiating therapy with aromatase inhibitors was not associated with VTE (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.4; AR, 28.3). In conclusion, women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer have a clinically important risk of VTE, whereas an increased risk of VTE immediately after endocrine therapy is restricted to tamoxifen.

Venous thromboembolism and mortality in breast cancer: cohort study with systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, current evidence as to whether VTE increases the risk of mortality in breast cancer patients is conflicting. We present data from a large cohort of patients from the UK and pool these with previous data from a systematic review. METHODS: Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) dataset, we identified a cohort of 13,202 breast cancer patients, of whom 611 were diagnosed with VTE between 1997 and 2006 and 12,591 did not develop VTE. Hazard ratios (HR) were used to compare mortality between the two groups. These were then pooled with existing data on this topic identified via a search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (until January 2015) using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Within the CPRD, VTE was associated with increased mortality when treated as a time-varying covariate (HR = 2.42; 95% CI, 2.13-2.75), however, when patients were permanently classed as having VTE based on presence of a VTE event within 6 months of cancer diagnosis, no increased risk was observed (HR = 1.22; 0.93-1.60). The pooled HR from seven studies using the second approach was 1.69 (1.12-2.55), with no effect seen when restricted to studies which adjusted for key covariates. CONCLUSION: A large HR for VTE in the time-varying covariate analysis reflects the known short-term mortality following a VTE. When breast cancer patients are fortunate to survive the initial VTE, the influence on longer-term mortality is less certain.

Increased peri-ductal collagen micro-organization may contribute to raised mammographic density.

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density is a therapeutically modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. Although mammographic density is correlated with the relative abundance of collagen-rich fibroglandular tissue, the causative mechanisms, associated structural remodelling and mechanical consequences remain poorly defined. In this study we have developed a new collaborative bedside-to-bench workflow to determine the relationship between mammographic density, collagen abundance and alignment, tissue stiffness and the expression of extracellular matrix organising proteins. METHODS: Mammographic density was assessed in 22 post-menopausal women (aged 54-66 y). A radiologist and a pathologist identified and excised regions of elevated non-cancerous X-ray density prior to laboratory characterization. Collagen abundance was determined by both Masson's trichrome and Picrosirius red staining (which enhances collagen birefringence when viewed under polarised light). The structural specificity of these collagen visualisation methods was determined by comparing the relative birefringence and ultrastructure (visualised by atomic force microscopy) of unaligned collagen I fibrils in reconstituted gels with the highly aligned collagen fibrils in rat tail tendon. Localised collagen fibril organisation and stiffness was also evaluated in tissue sections by atomic force microscopy/spectroscopy and the abundance of key extracellular proteins was assessed using mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Mammographic density was positively correlated with the abundance of aligned periductal fibrils rather than with the abundance of amorphous collagen. Compared with matched tissue resected from the breasts of low mammographic density patients, the highly birefringent tissue in mammographically dense breasts was both significantly stiffer and characterised by large (>80 µm long) fibrillar collagen bundles. Subsequent proteomic analyses not only confirmed the absence of collagen fibrosis in high mammographic density tissue, but additionally identified the up-regulation of periostin and collagen XVI (regulators of collagen fibril structure and architecture) as potential mediators of localised mechanical stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data suggest that remodelling, and hence stiffening, of the existing stromal collagen microarchitecture promotes high mammographic density within the breast. In turn, this aberrant mechanical environment may trigger neoplasia-associated mechanotransduction pathways within the epithelial cell population.

Improving accuracy of clinical coding in surgery: collaboration is key.

BACKGROUND: Clinical coding data provide the basis for Hospital Episode Statistics and Healthcare Resource Group codes. High accuracy of this information is required for payment by results, allocation of health and research resources, and public health data and planning. We sought to identify the level of accuracy of clinical coding in general surgical admissions across hospitals in the Northwest of England. METHOD: Clinical coding departments identified a total of 208 emergency general surgical patients discharged between 1st March and 15th August 2013 from seven hospital trusts (median = 20, range = 16-60). Blinded re-coding was performed by a senior clinical coder and clinician, with results compared with the original coding outcome. Recorded codes were generated from OPCS-4 & ICD-10. RESULTS: Of all cases, 194 of 208 (93.3%) had at least one coding error and 9 of 208 (4.3%) had errors in both primary diagnosis and primary procedure. Errors were found in 64 of 208 (30.8%) of primary diagnoses and 30 of 137 (21.9%) of primary procedure codes. Median tariff using original codes was £1411.50 (range, £409-9138). Re-calculation using updated clinical codes showed a median tariff of £1387.50, P = 0.997 (range, £406-10,102). The most frequent reasons for incorrect coding were "coder error" and a requirement for "clinical interpretation of notes". CONCLUSIONS: Errors in clinical coding are multifactorial and have significant impact on primary diagnosis, potentially affecting the accuracy of Hospital Episode Statistics data and in turn the allocation of health care resources and public health planning. As we move toward surgeon specific outcomes, surgeons should increase collaboration with coding departments to ensure the system is robust.

Immediate breast reconstruction does not increase postmastectomy pain.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a recognized complication of breast surgery, with a reported prevalence of 20­52 %. We investigated whether patients having immediate reconstruction (IR) reported more long-term pain compared to those having mastectomy alone (MA). We also investigated treatment factors influencing PMPS. METHODS: In a single center, all patients who underwent MA or IR between January 2009 and June 2011 and attended for follow-up between February 2012 and July 2012 were identified. Patients were invited to complete two questionnaires, a pain intensity visual analog scale (VAS, scored 0 to 10) and the PainDetect screening tool for neuropathic pain. RESULTS: Of 318 patients due to attend, 272 (86 %) submitted complete questionnaires. Of these, 134 (49 %) women had IR (implant based n = 93, pedicled flaps n = 33, free flaps n = 8). The overall point prevalence pain was low, with 221 (81 %) reporting VAS current pain as zero. Only 8 (3 %) patients reported a VAS score above 4. Six (2 %) patients had a positive PainDetect score. The percentage of patients reporting VAS scores greater than zero and positive or borderline PainDetect scores was similar for MA and IR (VAS: 13 and 14 %, respectively; PainDetect: 6 and 11 %, respectively). Radiotherapy was the strongest predictor of neuropathic pain. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, the prevalence of PMPS was lower than historic reports. We find no evidence of increased overall pain intensity or chronic neuropathic pain after IR compared to MA despite additional tissue dissection and potential donor site morbidity. This adds support to the positive benefits of breast reconstruction.

The MARECA (national study of management of breast cancer locoregional recurrence and oncological outcomes) study: protocol for a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

Background: Despite a UK 5-year breast cancer survival rate of 86.6%, patients may develop breast cancer recurrence within the same breast after breast conserving surgery, as well as in the remaining skin or chest wall after mastectomy or in the ipsilateral lymph glands. These recurrences, collectively termed locoregional recurrence (LRR), occur in around 8% of patients within 10 years of their original diagnosis. Currently, there is a lack of robust information on the presentation and prevalence of LRR with no UK-specific clinical guidelines available for the optimal management of this patient group. Additionally, there is a need to identify patterns of LRR presentation and their progression, which will enable prognostic factors to be determined. This will subsequently enable the tailoring of treatment and improve patient outcome. Methods: The MARECA study is a prospective, multicentre cohort study recruiting patients diagnosed with breast cancer LRR +/- associated distant metastases. Over 50 UK breast units are participating in the study with the aim of recruiting at least 500 patients over a recruitment period of 24 months. The data collected will detail the tumour pathology, imaging results, surgical treatment, radiotherapy and systemic therapy of the primary and recurrent breast cancer. Study follow-up will be for up to 5 years following LRR diagnosis to determine subsequent oncological outcomes and evaluate potential prognostic factors. Discussion: This study will address the current knowledge gap and identify subgroups of patients who have less successful treatment outcomes. The results will determine the current management of LRR and the prognosis of patients diagnosed with breast cancer LRR +/- distant metastases in the UK, with the aim of establishing best practice and informing future national guidelines. The results will direct future research and inform the design of additional interventional trials and translational studies.

Evidence-informed recommendations on managing breast screening atypia: perspectives from an expert panel consensus meeting reviewing results from the Sloane atypia project.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential to maximize patient benefit and to reduce clinical uncertainty and inconsistency in clinical practice. Gaps in the evidence base can be addressed by data acquired in routine practice. At present, there is no international consensus on management of women diagnosed with atypical lesions in breast screening programmes. Here, we describe how routine NHS breast screening data collected by the Sloane atypia project was used to inform a management pathway that maximizes early detection of cancer and minimizes over-investigation of lesions with uncertain malignant potential. A half-day consensus meeting with 11 clinical experts, 1 representative from Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, 6 representatives from NHS England (NHSE) including from Commissioning, and 2 researchers was held to facilitate discussions of findings from an analysis of the Sloane atypia project. Key considerations of the expert group in terms of the management of women with screen detected atypia were: (1) frequency and purpose of follow-up; (2) communication to patients; (3) generalizability of study results; and (4) workforce challenges. The group concurred that the new evidence does not support annual surveillance mammography for women with atypia, irrespective of type of lesion, or woman's age. Continued data collection is paramount to monitor and audit the change in recommendations.

Critical research gaps and translational priorities for the successful prevention and treatment of breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. METHODS: More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer 'stem' cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. RESULTS: The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. CONCLUSIONS: With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.

Breast Reconstruction Outcomes with and without Strattice: Long-Term Outcomes of a Multicenter Study Comparing Strattice Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction with Submuscular Implant Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Over half of immediate implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBR) are performed with an acellular dermal matrix, despite limited long-term outcome data. METHODS: The Breast Reconstruction Outcomes with and without Strattice, or BROWSE, study was a retrospective multicenter cohort study comparing consecutive patients who had undergone immediate Strattice IBBR with those who had undergone immediate IBBR with a submuscular technique between January of 2009 and December of 2015. RESULTS: This study compared 553 Strattice reconstructions with 242 submuscular reconstructions, with a median follow-up of 4.3 years (range, 2 to 9.3 years) and 5.7 years (range, 2 to 8.1 years), respectively, demonstrating an equivalent total complication rate [Strattice, n = 204 (36.9%); submuscular, n = 77 (31.8%); P = 0.17] and implant loss rate (8.5% versus 5.4%, respectively; P = 0.12). Infection rates and wound dehiscence rates were higher in the Strattice cohort [ n = 114 (20.6%) versus n = 31 (12.8%), P = 0.009; and n = 90 (16.3%) versus n = 25 (10.4%), P = 0.03, respectively]. Overall revision rates were comparable [ n = 226 (46.7%) versus n = 79 (41.1%); P = 0.2], but significantly fewer Strattice reconstructions required revision surgery for capsular contracture (5.3% versus 15.6%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the risk of complications associated with Strattice reconstruction is numerically higher than that for submuscular coverage, the difference is small and not statistically significant, and likely outweighed by the clear reduced rate of revision surgery because of capsular contracture when Strattice is used. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

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.

Contemporary breast cancer treatment-associated thrombosis.

Although cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is relatively uncommon in breast cancer compared to other solid cancers, as breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women worldwide, the financial and personal cost of breast cancer associated thrombosis (BrCAT) is significant. This increasing risk of BrCAT over time parallels modern developments in breast cancer management. This review comprehensively reports the evidence for BrCAT in the context of modern breast cancer treatments. The risk of BrCAT is most pronounced within the first 3 months to year of diagnosis. The risk of BrCAT increases with operating time, paralleling the increasing frequency of immediate breast reconstruction. Systemic therapies such as chemotherapy and tamoxifen have well recognised thrombogenic effects, that are exacerbated by surgery and supplementary treatments such as colony-stimulating factors, steroids, and bisphosphonates however risk assessment tools are not designed specifically for this lower-VTE risk cancer. Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) Inhibitors, used in metastatic breast cancer, with trials ongoing in early disease, appear to have a class thrombogenic effect, although there is no increase CAT risk with other breast cancer targeted therapies. Given the numerous prothrombotic treatments facing patients within the first year of diagnosis, from surgery, chemotherapy, targeted therapies and endocrine therapy, a more personalised approach considering the additive effects of each individual patient's pathway, as well as their pre-existing risk factors, needs to be considered.

BROWSE: A multicentre comparison of nine year outcomes in acellular dermal matrix based and complete submuscular implant-based immediate breast reconstruction-aesthetics, capsular contracture and patient reported outcomes.

Approximately 60% of implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBR) are performed with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM), for which, reliable, good quality long-term outcome data is limited. In a retrospective multicentre cohort study, we aimed to determine long-term aesthetic and quality of life outcomes of IBBR with ADM (Strattice™) compared to a submuscular technique. METHODS: Capsular contracture (Baker III/IV capsule) was determined by clinical examination by an independent researcher. Quality of life was assessed using BREAST-Q and aesthetic outcome by photographic assessment from a breast surgeon, breast care nurse and lay person, blinded to reconstruction type. RESULTS: We recruited 117 (51 bilateral) patients with ADM reconstructions, median follow-up 62 months (range 29-113) and 49 patients (16 bilateral) with submuscular reconstructions, median follow-up 76 months (range 38-111). 17 (10.1%) ADM reconstructions were Baker 3/4 compared to six (9.2%) submuscular (p = 0.85). Of the Baker 1/2 reconstructions six (3.6%) ADM and eight (13.6%) submuscular had previously undergone revision surgery to correct capsular contracture (p = 0.01). Combining both findings gave an estimated rate of capsular contracture of 13.6% in the ADM group and 21.2% in the submuscular (p = 0.14). A higher mean score for satisfaction with breasts was demonstrated when comparing ADM to submuscular (62 and 55, respectively; p = 0.01) but no significant difference in other BREAST-Q domains. The mean 'general satisfaction' score was higher in the ADM group for all three photograph assessors. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of improved aesthetic outcome and reduction in capsular contracture with ADM reconstruction when compared to submuscular, consistent over long-term follow-up.