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 | 2017 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
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.
Coles Charlotte E CE Griffin Clare L CL Kirby Anna M AM Titley Jenny J Agrawal Rajiv K RK Alhasso Abdulla A Bhattacharya Indrani S IS Brunt Adrian M AM Ciurlionis Laura L Chan Charlie C Donovan Ellen M EM Emson Marie A MA Harnett Adrian N AN Haviland Joanne S JS Hopwood Penelope P Jefford Monica L ML Kaggwa Ronald R Sawyer Elinor J EJ Syndikus Isabel I Tsang Yat M YM Wheatley Duncan A DA Wilcox Maggie M Yarnold John R JR Bliss Judith M JM
Lancet (London, England) 20170802 10099
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>IMPORT LOW is a multice ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo address whether sparing the medial retropharyngeal lymph node (MRLN) region from elective irradiation volume provides non-inferior local relapse-free survival versus standard radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.DesignOpen-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.SettingThree Chinese hospitals between 20 November 2017 and 3 December 2018.ParticipantsAdults (18-65 years) with newly diagnosed, non-keratinising, non-distant metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma without MRLN involvement.InterventionsRandomisation was done centrally by the Clinical Trials Centre at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of four) to receive MRLN sparing radiotherapy or standard radiotherapy (both medial and lateral retropharyngeal lymph node groups), and stratified by institution and treatment modality as follows: radiotherapy alone; concurrent chemoradiotherapy; induction chemotherapy plus radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy.Main outcome measuresNon-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the one sided 97.5% confidence interval of the absolute difference in three year local relapse-free survival (MRLN sparing radiotherapy minus standard radiotherapy) was greater than -8%.Results568 patients were recruited: 285 in the MRLN sparing radiotherapy group; 283 in the standard radiotherapy group. Median follow-up was 42 months (interquartile range 39-45), intention-to-treat analysis showed that the three year local relapse-free survival of the MRLN sparing radiotherapy group was non-inferior to that of the standard radiotherapy group (95.3% v 95.5%, stratified hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 2.12), P=0.95) with a difference of -0.2% ((one sided 97.5% confidence interval -3.6 to ∞), Pnon-inferiority<0.001). In the safety set (n=564), the sparing group had a lower incidence of grade ≥1 acute dysphagia (25.5% v 35.1%, P=0.01) and late dysphagia (24.0% v 34.3%, P=0.008). Patient reported outcomes at three years after MRLN sparing radiotherapy were better in multiple domains after adjusting for the baseline values: global health status (mean difference -5.6 (95% confidence interval -9.1 to -2.0), P=0.002), role functioning (-5.5 (-7.4 to -3.6), P<0.001), social functioning (-6.2 (-8.9 to -3.6), P<0.001), fatigue (7.9 (4.0 to 11.8), P<0.001), and swallowing (11.0 (8.4 to 13.6), P<0.001). The difference in swallowing scores reached clinical significance (>10 points difference).ConclusionCompared with standard radiotherapy, MRLN sparing radiotherapy showed non-inferiority in terms of risk of local relapse with fewer radiation related toxicity and improved patient reported outcomes in patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03346109.
| S-EPMC9900470 | biostudies-literature
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:IntroductionCardiac 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 analysisA 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 disseminationEthics 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 numberNCT03881150; Pre-results.Date and version01 October 2019.
| S-EPMC6830628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionModern systemic treatment has reduced incidence of regional recurrences and improved survival in breast cancer (BC). It is thus questionable whether regional radiotherapy (RT) is still beneficial in patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) macrometastasis. Postoperative regional RT is associated with an increased risk of arm morbidity, pneumonitis, cardiac disease and secondary cancer. Therefore, there is a need to individualise regional RT in relation to the risk of recurrence.Methods and analysisIn this multicentre, prospective randomised trial, clinically node-negative patients with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative BC and 1-2 SLN macrometastases are eligible. Participants are randomly assigned to receive regional RT (standard arm) or not (intervention arm). Regional RT includes the axilla level I-III, the supraclavicular fossa and in selected patients the internal mammary nodes. Both groups receive RT to the remaining breast. Chest-wall RT after mastectomy is given in the standard arm, but in the intervention arm only in cases of widespread multifocality according to national guidelines. RT quality assurance is an integral part of the trial.The trial aims to include 1350 patients between March 2023 and December 2028 in Sweden and Norway. Primary outcome is recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 5 years. Non-inferiority will be declared if outcome in the de-escalation arm is not >4.5 percentage units below that with regional RT, corresponding to an HR of 1.41 assuming 88% 5-year RFS with standard treatment. Secondary outcomes include locoregional recurrence, overall survival, patient-reported arm morbidity and health-related quality of life. Gene expression analysis and tumour tissue-based studies to identify prognostic and predictive markers for benefit of regional RT are included.Ethics and disseminationThe trial protocol is approved by the Swedish Ethics Authority (Dnr-2022-02178-01, 2022-05093-02, 2023-00826-02, 2023-03035-02). Results will be presented at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT05634889.
| S-EPMC10533703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGenetic testing to identify germline high-risk pathogenic variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes is increasingly part of the breast cancer diagnostic pathway. Novel patient-centred pathways may offer opportunity to expand capacity and reduce turnaround time.MethodsWe recruited 1140 women with unselected breast cancer to undergo germline genetic testing through the BRCA-DIRECT pathway (which includes a digital platform, postal saliva sampling and a genetic counsellor telephone helpline). Ahead of consenting to the test, participants were randomised to receive information about genetic testing digitally (569/1140, 49.9%) or via a pre-test genetic counselling consultation (571/1140, 50.1%).Results1001 (87.8%) participants progressed to receive their pre-test information and consented to testing. The primary outcome, uptake of genetic testing, was higher amongst participants randomised to receive digital information compared with those randomised to a pre-test genetic counselling consultation (90.8% (95% CI: 88.5% to 93.1%) vs 84.7% (95% CI: 81.8% to 87.6%), p = 0.002, adjusted for participant age and site). Non-inferiority was observed in relation to patient knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction.ConclusionsFindings demonstrate that standardised, digital information offers a non-inferior alternative to conventional genetic counselling, and an end-to-end patient-centred, digital pathway (supported by genetic counselling hotline) could feasibly be implemented into breast oncology settings.Clinical trial registrationThe study is registered with, and protocol available on, ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04842799).
| S-EPMC11519354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, most of the randomised trials with hypofractionation in patients with breast cancer have used 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy technique (3D-CRT). As facilities for 3D-CRT technique may not be available in low-resource settings, there is a need to see if hypofractionation is feasible and safe with 2-dimensional (2-D) technique. In this study, we compared a 3-week radiation schedule with a 2-week schedule of hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer with 2-D technique.MethodsThe current study was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Patients with breast cancer, stage I-III, post mastectomy or after breast conservative surgery who needed adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy were randomised in the Department of Radiotherapy & Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India; to 34Gy in 10 fractions over 2 weeks (2-week arm) or 35Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks to the chest wall and 40Gy/15#/3wks to breast and supraclavicular fossa (3-week arm). Boost dose when indicated was 8-10Gy/2-4#/2-4 days in both the arms. Patients were planned on a 2-dimensional (2D) simulator with 2 tangential fields to breast/chest wall and incident supraclavicular fossa field. Acute toxicity was assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading scale. Assessments were carried out weekly during radiotherapy and at 4 weeks after treatment by the physician. Cosmetic outcome was assessed using the Harvard/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)/RTOG scale. The toxicity rates between the two arms were compared using Fisher's exact tests. The trial was approved by institutional ethics committee and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04075058.FindingsThis study included 1121 eligible patients from June 2015 to December 2020. Median follow-up was 35 months (6-84 months). Mean age was 48 years (24-75 years). The patient characteristics were comparable between the two arms except for more mastectomies in the 3-week arm and more node-positive patients in the 2-week arm. There were more oestrogen receptor-positive tumors in the 3-week arm. Acute skin toxicities were comparable between the two arms. Grade 2 and 3 skin toxicity was 100 (18%) and 82 (15%); and 16 (3%) and 12 (2%) in the 3-week and 2-week arm (p = 0.21), respectively. Cosmetic outcome was assessed as Excellent or Good for 89% of patients in the 3-week arm as compared to 94% in the 2-week arm (p = 0.004).InterpretationThe two radiation schedules were comparable in terms of acute skin toxicity. The cosmetic outcome was better with the 2-week schedule. The preliminary findings indicate 2-week radiotherapy schedule with 2-D technique was better than the 3-week schedule in patients with breast cancer. However, disease outcomes and late-term toxicities need to be further checked.FundingThis study was funded by Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), India.
| S-EPMC10973130 | biostudies-literature