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

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

When the World Throws You a Curve Ball: Lessons Learned in Breast Cancer Management.

In the care of patients with operable breast cancer, there has been a shift toward increasing use of neoadjuvant therapy. There are benefits to neoadjuvant therapy, such as monitoring for response, as well as an increased rate of breast conservation and reduction of potential morbidity associated with breast surgery, including axillary management. Among patients with highly proliferative tumors, such as HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer, those with residual disease are at higher risk of recurrence, which informs the recommended systemic therapy in the adjuvant setting. For instance, in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy, there is a role for adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine for those with residual disease at the time of surgery. The same holds true regarding the role of adjuvant capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. With the added complexities of treating patients in the era of the COVID-19 outbreak, additional considerations are critical, including initiation of surgery within an appropriate time from completion of neoadjuvant therapy. National consensus guidelines on time to surgery must be developed to improve measurement and comparison across systems. In addition, there is emerging radiation treatment management research addressing a number of factors, including hypofractionation, role of proton beam therapy, safe omission of radiotherapy, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without drug combination. In this article, the multidisciplinary approach of treating patients with operable breast cancer is highlighted, with updates and future considerations described.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer has improved outcomes but causes toxicity. The UK TACT2 trial used a 2×2 factorial design to test two hypotheses: whether use of accelerated epirubicin would improve time to tumour recurrence (TTR); and whether use of oral capecitabine instead of cyclophosphamide would be non-inferior in terms of patients' outcomes and would improve toxicity, quality of life, or both. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 129 UK centres who had histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative operable breast cancer, had undergone complete excision, and were due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 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 classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (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 one to three vs four or more), age (≤50 years vs >50 years), and planned endocrine treatment (yes vs no). The primary endpoint was TTR, defined as time from randomisation to first invasive relapse or breast cancer death, with intention-to-treat analysis of standard versus accelerated epirubicin and per-protocol analysis of CMF versus capecitabine. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 68068041, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00301925. FINDINGS: From Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (4371 women and 20 men) were recruited. At a median follow-up of 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9) no significant difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the accelerated and standard epirubicin groups (overall hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·09; stratified p=0·42). At 5 years, 85·9% (95% CI 84·3-87·3) of patients receiving standard epirubicin and 87·1% (85·6-88·4) of those receiving accelerated epirubicin were free from TTR events. 4358 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, and no difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the CMF and capecitabine groups (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1.14; stratified p=0·00092 for non-inferiority). Compared with baseline, significantly more patients taking CMF than those taking capecitabine had clinically relevant worsening of quality of life at end of treatment (255 [58%] of 441 vs 235 [50%] of 475; p=0·011) and at 12 months (114 [34%] of 334 vs 89 [22%] of 401; p<0·001 at 12 months) and had worse quality of life over time (p<0·0001). Detailed toxicity and quality-of-life data were collected from 2115 (48%) of treated patients. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in cycles 1-4 were neutropenia (175 [16%]) and fatigue (56 [5%]) of the 1070 patients treated with standard epirubicin, and fatigue (63 [6%]) and infection (34 [3%]) of the 1045 patients treated with accelerated epirubicin. In cycles 5-8, the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (321 [31%]) and fatigue (109 [11%]) in the patients treated with CMF, and hand-foot syndrome (129 [12%]) and diarrhoea (67 [6%]) in the 1044 patients treated with capcitabine. INTERPRETATION: We found no benefit from increasing the dose density of the anthracycline component of chemotherapy. However, capecitabine could be used in place of CMF without significant loss of efficacy and with improved quality of life. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.

Acute skin toxicity associated with a 1-week schedule of whole breast radiotherapy compared with a standard 3-week regimen delivered in the UK FAST-Forward Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: FAST-Forward is a phase 3 clinical trial testing a 1-week course of whole breast radiotherapy against the UK standard 3-week regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Two acute skin toxicity substudies were undertaken to test the safety of the test schedules with respect to early skin reactions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to 40Gy/15 fractions (F)/3-weeks, 27Gy/5F/1-week or 26Gy/5F/1-week. Acute breast skin reactions were graded using RTOG (first substudy) and CTCAE criteria v4.03 (second substudy) weekly during treatment and for 4weeks after treatment ended. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients within each treatment group with grade ⩾3 toxicity (RTOG and CTCAE, respectively) at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4weeks after completion. RESULTS: 190 and 162 patients were recruited. In the first substudy, evaluable patients with grade 3 RTOG toxicity were: 40Gy/15F 6/44 (13.6%); 27Gy/5F 5/51 (9.8%); 26Gy/5F 3/52 (5.8%). In the second substudy, evaluable patients with grade 3 CTCAE toxicity were: 40Gy/15F 0/43; 27Gy/5F 1/41 (2.4%); 26Gy/5F 0/53. CONCLUSIONS: Acute breast skin reactions with two 1-week schedules of whole breast radiotherapy under test in FAST-Forward were mild.

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. METHODS: In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4-5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6-5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0-4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83-1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79-1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3-4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). INTERPRETATION: After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.

2 years versus 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer (HERA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab has established efficacy against breast cancer with overexpression or amplification of the HER2 oncogene. The standard of care is 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab, but the optimum duration of treatment is unknown. We compared 2 years of treatment with trastuzumab with 1 year of treatment, and updated the comparison of 1 year of trastuzumab versus observation at a median follow-up of 8 years, for patients enrolled in the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. METHODS: The HERA trial is an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing treatment with trastuzumab for 1 and 2 years with observation after standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, or both in 5102 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The comparison of 2 years versus 1 year of trastuzumab treatment involved a landmark analysis of 3105 patients who were disease-free 12 months after randomisation to one of the trastuzumab groups, and was planned after observing at least 725 disease-free survival events. The updated intention-to-treat comparison of 1 year trastuzumab treatment versus observation alone in 3399 patients at a median follow-up of 8 years (range 0-10) is also reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00045032. FINDINGS: We recorded 367 events of disease-free survival in 1552 patients in the 1 year group and 367 events in 1553 patients in the 2 year group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·85-1·14, p=0·86). Grade 3-4 adverse events and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction during treatment were reported more frequently in the 2 year treatment group than in the 1 year group (342 [20·4%] vs 275 [16·3%] grade 3-4 adverse events, and 120 [7·2%] vs 69 [4·1%] decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction, respectively). HRs for a comparison of 1 year of trastuzumab treatment versus observation were 0·76 (95% CI 0·67-0·86, p<0·0001) for disease-free survival and 0·76 (0·65-0·88, p=0·0005) for overall survival, despite crossover of 884 (52%) patients from the observation group to trastuzumab therapy. INTERPRETATION: 2 years of adjuvant trastuzumab is not more effective than is 1 year of treatment for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. 1 year of treatment provides a significant disease-free and overall survival benefit compared with observation and remains the standard of care. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche).

First results of the randomised UK FAST Trial of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer (CRUKE/04/015).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomised trials testing 15- or 16-fraction regimens of adjuvant radiotherapy in women with early breast cancer have reported favourable outcomes compared with standard fractionation. To evaluate hypofractionation further, two 5-fraction schedules delivering 1 fraction per week have been tested against a 25-fraction regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women aged ⩾50years with node negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned after microscopic complete tumour resection to 50Gy in 25 fractions versus 28.5 or 30Gy in 5 once-weekly fractions of 5.7 or 6.0Gy, respectively, to the whole breast. The primary endpoint was 2-year change in photographic breast appearance. RESULTS: Nine hundred and fifteen women were recruited from 2004 to 2007. Seven hundred and twenty-nine patients had 2-year photographic assessments. Risk ratios for mild/marked change were 1.70 (95% CI 1.26-2.29, p<0.001) for 30Gy and 1.15 (0.82-1.60, p=0.489) for 28.5Gy versus 50Gy. Three-year rates of physician-assessed moderate/marked adverse effects in the breast were 17.3% (13.3-22.3%, p<0.001) for 30Gy and 11.1% (7.9-15.6%, p=0.18) for 28.5Gy compared with 9.5% (6.5-13.7%) after 50Gy. With a median follow-up in survivors of 37.3months, 2 local tumour relapses and 23 deaths have occurred. CONCLUSIONS: At 3years median follow-up, 28.5Gy in 5 fractions is comparable to 50Gy in 25 fractions, and significantly milder than 30Gy in 5 fractions, in terms of adverse effects in the breast.

Ten-year audit of melanoma in a central England population.

The incidence of melanoma in the North Staffordshire region has more than doubled over the last 10 years, and nearly tripled in the "thin" melanoma group (≤ 1 mm). A retrospective audit was performed to investigate the overall management of melanoma, with a focus on thin melanomas. A total of 507 patients was identified between 1999 and 2009. The incidence of melanoma is increasing in the older age groups (> 50 years), although the thin melanomas were diagnosed at a significantly younger age than the cohort as a whole (p < 0.001). The anatomical distribution was similar in both groups. More females were affected by thin melanomas (65%) compared with all melanomas (55%). This audit provides a unique insight into the incidence and characteristics of melanoma in a Central England population. The incidence of melanoma is increasing, but more so in the thin group. Thick (> 4 mm) and intermediate (1.01-4 mm) melanomas are increasing at a slower rate.

Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (NEAT) and the BR9601 trial examined the efficacy of anthracyclines in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. METHODS: In NEAT, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) with six cycles of CMF alone. In the BR9601 trial, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of CMF, with eight cycles of CMF alone every 3 weeks. The primary end points were relapse-free and overall survival. The secondary end points were adverse effects, dose intensity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The two trials included 2391 women with early breast cancer; the median follow-up was 48 months. Relapse-free and overall survival rates were significantly higher in the epirubicin-CMF groups than in the CMF-alone groups (2-year relapse-free survival, 91% vs. 85%; 5-year relapse-free survival, 76% vs. 69%; 2-year overall survival, 95% vs. 92%; 5-year overall survival, 82% vs. 75%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test for all comparisons). Hazard ratios for relapse (or death without relapse) (0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001) and death from any cause (0.67; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82; P<0.001) favored epirubicin plus CMF over CMF alone. Independent prognostic factors were nodal status, tumor grade, tumor size, and estrogen-receptor status (P<0.001 for all four factors) and the presence or absence of vascular or lymphatic invasion (P=0.01). These factors did not significantly interact with the effect of epirubicin plus CMF. The overall incidence of adverse effects was significantly higher with epirubicin plus CMF than with CMF alone but did not significantly affect the delivered-dose intensity or the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Epirubicin plus CMF is superior to CMF alone as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003577 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).