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.

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.

Primary radiotherapy and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction for patients with breast cancer (PRADA): a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy before mastectomy and autologous free-flap breast reconstruction can avoid adverse radiation effects on healthy donor tissues and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. However, evidence for this treatment sequence is sparse. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in patients with breast cancer requiring mastectomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study at two National Health Service trusts in the UK. Eligible patients were women aged older than 18 years with a laboratory diagnosis of primary breast cancer requiring mastectomy and post-mastectomy radiotherapy, who were suitable for DIEP flap reconstruction. Preoperative radiotherapy started 3-4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and was delivered to the breast, plus regional nodes as required, at 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks) or 42·72 Gy in 16 fractions (over 3·2 weeks). Adverse skin radiation toxicity was assessed preoperatively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading system. Skin-sparing mastectomy and DIEP flap reconstruction were planned for 2-6 weeks after completion of preoperative radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of open breast wounds greater than 1 cm width requiring a dressing at 4 weeks after surgery, assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02771938, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and Dec 11, 2017, 33 patients were enrolled. At 4 weeks after surgery, four (12·1%, 95% CI 3·4-28·2) of 33 patients had an open breast wound greater than 1 cm. One (3%) patient had confluent moist desquamation (grade 3). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction is feasible and technically safe, with rates of breast open wounds similar to those reported with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. A randomised trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy with post-mastectomy radiotherapy is required to precisely determine and compare surgical, oncological, and breast reconstruction outcomes, including quality of life. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research.

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.

Partial-breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery for patients with early breast cancer (UK IMPORT LOW trial): 5-year results from a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Local cancer relapse risk after breast conservation surgery followed by radiotherapy has fallen sharply in many countries, and is influenced by patient age and clinicopathological factors. We hypothesise that partial-breast radiotherapy restricted to the vicinity of the original tumour in women at lower than average risk of local relapse will improve the balance of beneficial versus adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. METHODS: IMPORT LOW is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK. Women aged 50 years or older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of grade 1-3, with a tumour size of 3 cm or less (pT1-2), none to three positive axillary nodes (pN0-1), and minimum microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more, were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 40 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy (control), 36 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy and 40 Gy to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy to the partial breast only (partial-breast group) in 15 daily treatment fractions. Computer-generated random permuted blocks (mixed sizes of six and nine) were used to assign patients to groups, stratifying patients by radiotherapy treatment centre. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. Field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered using standard tangential beams that were simply reduced in length for the partial-breast group. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral local relapse (80% power to exclude a 2·5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the local relapse hazard ratio [HR] was less than 2·03), analysed by intention to treat. Safety analyses were done in all patients for whom data was available (ie, a modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN12852634. FINDINGS: Between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, 2018 women were recruited. Two women withdrew consent for use of their data in the analysis. 674 patients were analysed in the whole-breast radiotherapy (control) group, 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 669 in the partial-breast group. Median follow-up was 72·2 months (IQR 61·7-83·2), and 5-year estimates of local relapse cumulative incidence were 1·1% (95% CI 0·5-2·3) of patients in the control group, 0·2% (0·02-1·2) in the reduced-dose group, and 0·5% (0·2-1·4) in the partial-breast group. Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the control group were -0·73% (-0·99 to 0·22) for the reduced-dose and -0·38% (-0·84 to 0·90) for the partial-breast groups. Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, and was confirmed by the test against the critical HR being more than 2·03 (p=0·003 for the reduced-dose group and p=0·016 for the partial-breast group, compared with the whole-breast radiotherapy group). Photographic, patient, and clinical assessments recorded similar adverse effects after reduced-dose or partial-breast radiotherapy, including two patient domains achieving statistically significantly lower adverse effects (change in breast appearance [p=0·007 for partial-breast] and breast harder or firmer [p=0·002 for reduced-dose and p<0·0001 for partial-breast]) compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy compared with the standard whole-breast radiotherapy in terms of local relapse in a cohort of patients with early breast cancer, and equivalent or fewer late normal-tissue adverse effects were seen. This simple radiotherapy technique is implementable in radiotherapy centres worldwide. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

The potential role of three-dimensional surface imaging as a tool to evaluate aesthetic outcome after Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT).

PURPOSE: To establish whether objective measurements of symmetry of volume and shape using three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) can be used as surrogate markers of aesthetic outcome in patients who have undergone breast conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Women who had undergone unilateral BCT in the preceding 1-6 years were invited to participate. Participants completed a satisfaction questionnaire (BREAST-Q) and underwent 3D-SI. Volume and surface symmetry were measured on the images. Assessment of aesthetic outcome was undertaken by a panel of clinicians. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the relationship between volume and shape symmetry measurements with the panel score. Spearman's rho correlations were used to assess the relationship between the measurements and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: 200 women participated. Median volume symmetry was 87% (IQR 78-93) and shape symmetry was 5.9 mm (IQR 4.2-8.0). The participants were grouped according to panel assessment of aesthetic outcome (poor, fair, good, excellent) and the median volume and shape symmetry was calculated for each group. Volume symmetry significantly differed between the groups. Post hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated that these differences existed between panel scores of fair versus good and good versus excellent. Median shape symmetry also differed according to patient panel groups with four significant pairwise comparisons between poor versus good, poor versus excellent, fair versus good and fair versus excellent. There was a significant but weak correlation of both volume symmetry and surface asymmetry with BREAST-Q scores (correlation coefficients 0.187 and -0.229, respectively). CONCLUSION: Breast volume and shape symmetry are both associated with panel assessment scores and patient satisfaction. The objective volume and shape symmetry measures were strongly associated with panel assessment scores, such that a 3D-SI tool could replace panel assessment as a faster and more objective method of evaluating aesthetic outcomes.

Improving the efficiency of breast radiotherapy treatment planning using a semi-automated approach.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce treatment planning times while maintaining plan quality through the introduction of semi-automated planning techniques for breast radiotherapy. METHODS: Automatic critical structure delineation was examined using the Smart Probabilistic Image Contouring Engine (SPICE) commercial autosegmentation software (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, WI) for a cohort of ten patients. Semiautomated planning was investigated by employing scripting in the treatment planning system to automate segment creation for breast step-and-shoot planning and create objectives for segment weight optimization; considerations were made for three different multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations. Forty patients were retrospectively planned using the script and a planning time comparison performed. RESULTS: The SPICE heart and lung outlines agreed closely with clinician-defined outlines (median Dice Similarity Coefficient > 0.9); median difference in mean heart dose was 0.0 cGy (range -10.8 to 5.4 cGy). Scripted treatment plans demonstrated equivalence with their clinical counterparts. No statistically significant differences were found for target parameters. Minimal ipsilateral lung dose increases were also observed. Statistically significant (P < 0.01) time reductions were achievable for MLCi and Agility MLC (Elekta Ltd, Crawley, UK) plans (median 4.9 and 5.9 min, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of commercial autosegmentation software enables breast plan adjustment based on doses to organs at risk. Semi-automated techniques for breast radiotherapy planning offer modest reductions in planning times. However, in the context of a typical department's breast radiotherapy workload, minor savings per plan translate into greater efficiencies overall.

Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module.

PURPOSE: The most recently developed module of the BREAST-Q, a validated patient outcome measure, is for patients who have undergone breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for cancer. This aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life after BCT using BREAST-Q, investigate clinical risk factors for lower satisfaction and explore the relationship between patient satisfaction with the appearance of their breasts and the other domains of the BREAST-Q. METHODS: Women who had undergone unilateral BCT in the preceding 1-6 years were invited to participate at the time of their annual surveillance mammogram. Clinicopathological data were collected from an electronic database. Linear regression was used to evaluate risk factors for lower satisfaction. Spearman's rho correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the relationship between domains. RESULTS: 200 women completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 60 years (SD 11.1). Time from surgery was 35.5 months (SD 17.8). Median score for 'Satisfaction with breasts' was 68 (interquartile range 55-80). Lowest scores were for 'sexual wellbeing' (57, IQR 45-66). On multivariate analysis, BMI at the time of surgery (p = 0.002), delayed wound healing (p = 0.001) and axillary surgery (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for lower satisfaction. There was significant correlation between 'Satisfaction with breasts' and all other BREAST-Q domains. CONCLUSION: High BMI, delayed wound healing and axillary surgery are risk factors for lower patient satisfaction. This first publication reporting the whole dataset for the BREAST-Q BCT will serve as a benchmark for future studies of patient satisfaction following BCT.

Personalizing Locoregional Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer in 2024: Tailoring Axillary Surgery, Escalating Lymphatic Surgery, and Implementing Evidence-Based Hypofractionated Radiotherapy.

The management of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer is continually evolving. Recent data now support omitting axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in most patients with metastases in up to two sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) during upfront surgery and those with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In the upfront surgery setting, ALND is still indicated, however, in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer or more than two positive SLNs and, after NACT, in case of residual micrometastases and macrometastases. Omission of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can be considered in many postmenopausal patients with small luminal breast cancer, particularly when axillary ultrasound is negative. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are currently aiming at eliminating the remaining indications for ALND and also establishing omission of SLNB in a broader patient population. The movement to deescalate axillary staging is in part because of the association between ALND and lymphedema, which is swelling of an extremity because of lymphatic damage and obstructed lymphatic drainage. To reduce the risk of developing this condition, patients undergoing ALND can undergo reverse mapping of the axilla and immediate reconstruction or bypass of the lymphatics from the involved extremity. Decongestion and compression are the foundation of conservative treatment for established lymphedema, while lymphovenous bypass and lymph node transfer are surgical procedures to address the physiologic dysfunction. Radiotherapy is an essential component of breast locoregional therapy: more than three decades of radiation research has optimized treatment according to patient's risk of local recurrence while substantially reducing the number of treatment visits. High-quality RCTs have shown the efficacy and safety of hypofractionation-more than 2Gy radiation dose per treatment (fraction)-significantly reducing the burden of radiotherapy treatment for many patients with breast cancer. In 2024, guidelines recommend no more than 15-16 fractions for whole-breast and nodal radiotherapy, with some recommending five fractions for whole-breast radiotherapy. In addition, simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) has been shown to be noninferior to sequential boost with regards to ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with similar or reduced long-term side effects, also reducing overall treatment length. Further RCTs are underway investigating other indications for five fractions, including SIB and regional node irradiation, such that, in future, it may be possible for the majority of breast radiotherapy patients to be treated with a 1-week course. This manuscript serves to outline the latest updates on axillary surgical staging, lymphatic surgery, and evidence-based radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

Preoperative three-dimensional simulation of the breast appearance after wide local excision or level one oncoplastic techniques for breast-conserving treatment does not set unrealistic expectations for aesthetic outcome: One-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Simulation of aesthetic outcomes of wide local excision and level one oncoplastic breast conserving treatment (BCT) using 3-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) prepares women for their aesthetic outcome. It remains unknown whether women's memory of this information at the one-year follow-up matches their perception of reality or affects the quality of life. METHODS: With ethical approval, a prospective 3-arm RCT was conducted and it included 3D-simulation, viewing post-operative 2D photographs of other women and standard care. At one-year post-surgery, the participants completed a visual analogue scale (VAS) for the question "How well do you think the information about how your breasts are likely to look after surgery reflects how they actually look today?" and the BCT BREAST-Q module. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine between-group differences at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2019, 117 women completed the primary endpoint of being informed about the aesthetic outcome via verbal description, photographs or simulation. Seventy-eight (74%) of the 106 women who remained eligible attended the one-year follow-up. The standardised preoperative 3D-SI simulation did not affect the patient's perception of the aesthetic outcome compared to standard care or viewing 2D photographs as measured using the VAS (p = 0.40) or BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with information (p = 0.76), satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.70), and psychosocial wellbeing domains (p = 0.81). DISCUSSION: Viewing their own 3D-SI standardised simulation did not significantly affect how the participants perceived their aesthetic outcome. In addition, it did not alter the patient-reported satisfaction. These results demonstrated that simulation for wide local excision or level one oncoplastic surgery does not set unrealistic expectations of the aesthetic outcome when used in a preoperative setting. SYNOPSIS: The use of a non-bespoke three-dimensional simulation of the aesthetic outcome for breast conserving treatment in the preoperative setting does not over-inflate expectations compared to standard care.

Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Guided Single-Dose Partial Breast Irradiation: 5-Year Results of the Prospective Single-Arm ABLATIVE Trial.

PURPOSE: Preoperative partial breast irradiation (PBI) can increase accuracy of target volume definition and decrease irradiated volumes compared with postoperative PBI. In the ABLATIVE trial (NCT02316561), 15 of 36 patients achieved pathologic complete response 6 to 8 months after preoperative PBI and breast-conserving surgery (BCS). We now present the 5-year results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ABLATIVE trial is a Dutch prospective cohort study conducted in 4 hospitals. Women aged ≥50 years with unifocal, nonlobular breast cancer, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, and a tumor negative sentinel node were treated between 2015 and 2018 with preoperative single-dose PBI followed by BCS after 6 or 8 months. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response. Secondary endpoints were annually evaluated oncological outcomes, toxicity, cosmetic outcome (assessed by patients and physicians), and quality of life. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were treated with BCS 6 (n = 15) and 8 (n = 21) months following PBI. Median tumor size was 13 mm (IQR 9-16 mm). After a median follow-up of 5.5 years (IQR, 5.1-6.0), 2 (6%) patients had ipsilateral breast events and 2 (6%) distant metastases. The 5-year overall survival was 94% (95% CI, 87-100). The 5-year cumulative incidence of clinician-reported grade 1/2 breast fibrosis and breast discomfort/pain were 94%/6% and 75%/6%, respectively. The proportion of patients (very) satisfied with the cosmetic results was 89% at baseline and 78% at 5 years. Cosmetic results evaluated using the BCCT.core software were excellent or good in all patients. The 4-year median global quality of life score was 83 (IQR, 67-92), similar to baseline (83; IQR, 75-83; P = .42). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative single-dose PBI and BCS may be an oncologically safe treatment with mild late toxicity and no decline in cosmetic results and quality of life during 5 years of follow-up. This means that preoperative instead of standard postoperative irradiation has the potential to challenge the current clinical practice.

Safety and Tolerability of Online Adaptive High-Field Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiotherapy.

Importance: In 2018, the first online adaptive magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) system using a 1.5-T MR-equipped linear accelerator (1.5-T MR-Linac) was clinically introduced. This system enables online adaptive radiotherapy, in which the radiation plan is adapted to size and shape changes of targets at each treatment session based on daily MR-visualized anatomy. Objective: To evaluate safety, tolerability, and technical feasibility of treatment with a 1.5-T MR-Linac, specifically focusing on the subset of patients treated with an online adaptive strategy (ie, the adapt-to-shape [ATS] approach). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults with solid tumors treated with a 1.5-T MR-Linac enrolled in Multi Outcome Evaluation for Radiation Therapy Using the MR-Linac (MOMENTUM), a large prospective international study of MRgRT between February 2019 and October 2021. Included were adults with solid tumors treated with a 1.5-T MR-Linac. Data were collected in Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the US. Data were analyzed in August 2023. Exposure: All patients underwent MRgRT using a 1.5-T MR-Linac. Radiation prescriptions were consistent with institutional standards of care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patterns of care, tolerability, and technical feasibility (ie, treatment completed as planned). Acute high-grade radiotherapy-related toxic effects (ie, grade 3 or higher toxic effects according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0) occurring within the first 3 months after treatment delivery. Results: In total, 1793 treatment courses (1772 patients) were included (median patient age, 69 years [range, 22-91 years]; 1384 male [77.2%]). Among 41 different treatment sites, common sites were prostate (745 [41.6%]), metastatic lymph nodes (233 [13.0%]), and brain (189 [10.5%]). ATS was used in 1050 courses (58.6%). MRgRT was completed as planned in 1720 treatment courses (95.9%). Patient withdrawal caused 5 patients (0.3%) to discontinue treatment. The incidence of radiotherapy-related grade 3 toxic effects was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.9%-2.0%) in the entire cohort and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.0%) in the subset of patients treated with ATS. There were no radiotherapy-related grade 4 or 5 toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients treated on a 1.5-T MR-Linac, radiotherapy was safe and well tolerated. Online adaptation of the radiation plan at each treatment session to account for anatomic variations was associated with a low risk of acute grade 3 toxic effects.

Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp study (PRADA): Aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction at one year.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal combination of radiotherapy and breast reconstruction has not yet been defined. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has deleterious effects on breast reconstruction, leading to caution amongst surgeons. Pre-operative radiotherapy (PRT) is a growing area of interest, is demonstrated to be safe, and spares autologous flaps from radiotherapy. This study evaluates the aesthetic outcome of PRT and deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction within the Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp (PRADA) cohort. METHODS: PRADA was an observational cohort study designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PRT for women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and DIEP reconstruction. Panel evaluation of 3D surface images (3D-SIs) and patient-reported outcome measures (BREAST-Q) for a subset of women in the study were compared with those of a DIEP-PMRT cohort who had undergone DIEP reconstruction and PMRT. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 33 women from the PRADA study participated in this planned substudy. Twenty-eight women formed the DIEP-PMRT cohort (median follow-up 23 months). The median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 'satisfaction with breasts' score at 12 months for the PRADA cohort was significantly better than the DIEP-PMRT cohort (77 [72-87] versus 64 [54-71], respectively), p=0.01). Median [IQR] panel evaluation (5-point scale) was also significantly better for the PRADA cohort than for the DIEP-PMRT cohort (4.3 [3.9-4.6] versus 3.6 [2.8-4] p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic outcome for the PRADA cohort was reported to be 'good' or 'excellent' in 93% of cases using a bespoke panel assessment with robust methodology. Patient satisfaction at one year is encouraging and superior to DIEP-PMRT at 23 months. Switching surgery-radiotherapy sequencing leads to similar breast aesthetic outcomes and warrants further large-scale, multi-centre evaluation in a randomised trial.

Proton Beam Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly available to patients with breast cancer. It achieves better planned dose distributions than standard photon radiation therapy and therefore may reduce the risks. However, clinical evidence is lacking. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review of clinical outcomes from studies of adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer published in 2000 to 2022 was undertaken. Early breast cancer was defined as when all detected invasive cancer cells are in the breast or nearby lymph nodes and can be removed surgically. Adverse outcomes were summarized quantitatively, and the prevalence of the most common ones were estimated using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies (1452 patients) reported clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Median follow-up ranged from 2 to 59 months. There were no published randomized trials comparing PBT with photon radiation therapy. Scattering PBT was delivered in 7 studies (258 patients) starting 2003 to 2015 and scanning PBT in 22 studies (1041 patients) starting 2000 to 2019. Two studies (123 patients) starting 2011 used both PBT types. For 1 study (30 patients), PBT type was unspecified. Adverse events were less severe after scanning than after scattering PBT. They also varied by clinical target. For partial breast PBT, 498 adverse events were reported (8 studies, 358 patients). None were categorized as severe after scanning PBT. For whole breast or chest wall ± regional lymph nodes PBT, 1344 adverse events were reported (19 studies, 933 patients). After scanning PBT, 4% (44/1026) of events were severe. The most prevalent severe outcome after scanning PBT was dermatitis, which occurred in 5.7% (95% confidence interval, 4.2-7.6) of patients. Other severe adverse outcomes included infection, pain, and pneumonitis (each ≤1%). Of the 141 reconstruction events reported (13 studies, 459 patients), the most prevalent after scanning PBT was prosthetic implant removal (34/181, 19%). CONCLUSIONS: This is a quantitative summary of all published clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Ongoing randomized trials will provide information on its longer-term safety compared with standard photon radiation therapy.

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.