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.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coles CE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5594247 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6541928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of oral antibiotic treatment alone with treatment started parenterally and completed orally in children with a first episode of acute pyelonephritis.DesignMulticentre, randomised controlled, open labelled, parallel group, non-inferiority trial.Setting28 paediatric units in north east Italy.Participants502 children aged 1 month to <7 years with clinical pyelonephritis.InterventionOral co-amoxiclav (50 mg/kg/day in three doses for 10 days) or parenteral ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg/day in a single parenteral dose) for three days, followed by oral co-amoxiclav (50 mg/kg/day in three divided doses for seven days). Main outcomes measures Primary outcome was the rate of renal scarring. Secondary measures of efficacy were time to defervescence (<37 degrees C), reduction in inflammatory indices, and percentage with sterile urine after 72 hours. An exploratory subgroup analysis was conducted in the children in whom pyelonephritis was confirmed by dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy within 10 days after study entry.ResultsIntention to treat analysis showed no significant differences between oral (n=244) and parenteral (n=258) treatment, both in the primary outcome (scarring scintigraphy at 12 months 27/197 (13.7%) v 36/203 (17.7%), difference in risk -4%, 95% confidence interval -11.1% to 3.1%) and secondary outcomes (time to defervescence 36.9 hours (SD 19.7) v 34.3 hours (SD 20), mean difference 2.6 (-0.9 to 6.0); white cell count 9.8x10(9)/l (SD 3.5) v 9.5x10(9)/l (SD 3.1), mean difference 0.3 (-0.3 to 0.9); percentage with sterile urine 185/186 v 203/204, risk difference -0.05% (-1.5% to 1.4%)). Similar results were found in the subgroup of 278 children with confirmed acute pyelonephritis on scintigraphy at study entry.ConclusionsTreatment with oral antibiotics is as effective as parenteral then oral treatment in the management of the first episode of clinical pyelonephritis in children.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT00161330 [ClinicalTrials.gov].
| S-EPMC1955287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIf treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects.MethodsPatients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612.FindingsBetween Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1-8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00-0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31-2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00-5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years.InterpretationAxillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity.FundingEORTC Charitable Trust.
| S-EPMC4291166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe 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.MethodsFAST-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.FindingsBetween 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.Interpretation26 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.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
| S-EPMC7262592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsHypofractionation to 5 fractions and partial breast radiotherapy modalities offer potentially important benefits to the UK health system.
| S-EPMC9672618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes are well established, and their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are proven. In spite of this, CR remains underused, especially in lower-resource settings such as Latin America. There is an urgent need to create more accessible CR delivery models to reach all patients in need. This trial aims to evaluate if the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events is not inferior in a hybrid CR programme compared with a standard programme. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:A non-inferiority, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel (1:1), prospective, randomised and open with blinded endpoint assessment clinical trial will be conducted. 308 patients with coronary artery disease will be recruited consecutively. Participants will be randomised to hybrid or standard rehabilitation programme. The hybrid CR programme includes 10 supervised exercise sessions and individualised lifestyle counselling by a physiotherapist, with a transition after 4-6 weeks to unsupervised delivery via text messages and phone calls. The standard CR consists of 18-22 supervised exercise sessions, as well as group education sessions about lifestyle. Intervention in both groups is between 8 and 12 weeks. The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisations due to cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, muscle strength, heart-healthy behaviour, return-to-work, cardiovascular risk factor, adherence, and exercise-related adverse events. The outcomes will be measured at the end of intervention, at 6 months and at 12?months follow-up from recruitment. The primary outcome will be tracked through the end of the trial. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis will be undertaken.Cox regression model will be used to compare primary outcome among study groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics committees at the sponsor institution and each centre where participants will be recruited approved the study protocol and the Informed Consent. Research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals; additionally, results will be disseminated among region stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03881150; Pre-results. DATE AND VERSION:01 October 2019.
| S-EPMC6830628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery.DesignMulticentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.Setting17 UK National Health Service cancer centres.Participants392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196).InterventionsUsual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months.Main outcome measuresDisability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective.ResultsBetween 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale -0.68, -1.23 to -0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) -2.02, -3.11 to -0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average -£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval -£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care.ConclusionsThe PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.
| S-EPMC8579424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) is an available treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), which is the most common cause of pain and disability. Nonetheless, whether the clinical effects are like that of most used drugs is unclear. Thus, this study aims to determine the effect of PEMF on pain relief by comparing them with the positive drug (celecoxib). Furthermore, this clinical trial aims to evaluate the effect of PEMF on function and quality of life with a long-term follow-up.Methods and analysisThis two-armed, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial will be conducted in the outpatient physiatry/physiotherapy clinic or inpatient ward of 17 hospitals in China. A total of 428 individuals will be included who are more than 40 years of age with diagnosed KOA. The participants will be randomly allocated to the PEMF group: receiving a 6-week PEMF (15 Hz, 30 mT) at a frequency of 40 min per day, 5 days per week plus sham drug (n=214), or drug group: receiving a 6-week celecoxib 200 mg combined with sham PEMF (n=214). Clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), mid-term of intervention (T1), post-intervention (T2), 10, 18 and 30 weeks (T3-5) of follow-up after randomisation. The primary outcome will be the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain index. The secondary outcomes will be WOMAC function and stiffness, pain measured by numerical rating score, quality of life, 6-minute walk test, pain catastrophising scale and responder index.Ethics and disseminationThe trial is performed following the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol and consent form have been approved by the Ethics Committee on Biomedical Research of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (#2021-220). All patients will give informed consent before participation and the trial is initiated after approval. Results of this trial will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChiCTR2100052131.
| S-EPMC10441616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In non-inferiority trials of radiotherapy in patients with early stage breast cancer, it is inevitable that some patients will cross over from the experimental arm to the standard arm prior to initiation of any treatment due to complexities in treatment planning or subject preference. Although the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis is the preferred approach for superiority trials, its role in non-inferiority trials is still under debate. This has led to the use of alternative approaches such as the per-protocol (PP) analysis or the as-treated (AT) analysis, despite the inherent biases of such approaches. METHODS:Using simulations, we investigate the effect of 2%, 5% and 10% random and non-random crossovers prior to radiotherapy initiation on the ITT, PP, AT and the combination of ITT and PP analyses with respect to type I error in trials with time-to-event outcomes. We also evaluate bias and SE of the estimates from the ITT, PP and AT approaches. RESULTS:The AT approach had the best performance in terms of type I error, but was anticonservative as non-random crossover increased. The ITT and PP approaches were anticonservative under all percentages of random and non-random crossover. Similarly, lowest bias was seen with the AT approach; however, bias increased as the percentage of non-random crossover increased. The ITT and PP had poor performance in terms of bias as crossovers increased. CONCLUSIONS:If minimal crossovers were to occur, we have shown that the AT approach has the lowest type I error rates and smallest opportunity for bias. Results of trials with a high number of crossovers should be interpreted with caution, especially when crossover is non-random. Attempts to prevent crossovers should be maximised.
| S-EPMC4212183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare induction of labour at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in low risk women.DesignOpen label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.Setting123 primary care midwifery practices and 45 hospitals (secondary care) in the Netherlands, 2012-16.Participants1801 low risk women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: randomised to induction (n=900) or to expectant management until 42 weeks (n=901).InterventionsInduction at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks with induction if necessary.Primary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity (Apgar score <7 at five minutes, arterial pH <7.05, meconium aspiration syndrome, plexus brachialis injury, intracranial haemorrhage, and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Secondary outcomes included maternal outcomes and mode of delivery. The null hypothesis that expectant management is inferior to induction was tested with a non-inferiority margin of 2%.ResultsMedian gestational age at delivery was 41 weeks+0 days (interquartile range 41 weeks+0 days-41 weeks+1 day) for the induction group and 41 weeks+2 days (41 weeks+0 days-41 weeks+5 days) for the expectant management group. The primary outcome was analysed for both the intention-to-treat population and the per protocol population. In the induction group, 15/900 (1.7%) women had an adverse perinatal outcome versus 28/901 (3.1%) in the expectant management group (absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% confidence interval -2.9% to 0.0%, P=0.22 for non-inferiority). 11 (1.2%) infants in the induction group and 23 (2.6%) in the expectant management group had an Apgar score <7 at five minutes (relative risk (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.98). No infants in the induction group and three (0.3%) in the expectant management group had an Apgar score <4 at five minutes. One fetal death (0.1%) occurred in the induction group and two (0.2%) in the expectant management group. No neonatal deaths occurred. 3 (0.3%) neonates in the induction group versus 8 (0.9%) in the expectant management group were admitted to an NICU (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.41). No significant difference was found in composite adverse maternal outcomes (induction n=122 (13.6%) v expectant management n=102 (11.3%)) or in caesarean section rate (both groups n=97 (10.8%)).ConclusionsThis study could not show non-inferiority of expectant management compared with induction of labour in women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks; instead a significant difference of 1.4% was found for risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in favour of induction, although the chances of a good perinatal outcome were high with both strategies and the incidence of perinatal mortality, Apgar score <4 at five minutes, and NICU admission low.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR3431.
| S-EPMC6598648 | biostudies-literature