SummaryBackgroundXerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia.MethodsWe undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537.Findings47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival.InterpretationSparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role fo...

CDK4/6 inhibition substantially improves progression-free survival (PFS) for women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, although there are no predictive biomarkers. Early changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) level may provide early response prediction, but the impact of tumor heterogeneity is unknown. Here we use plasma samples from patients in the randomized phase III PALOMA-3 study of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib and fulvestrant for women with advanced breast cancer and show that relative change in PIK3CA ctDNA level after 15 days treatment strongly predicts PFS on palbociclib and fulvestrant (hazard ratio 3.94, log-rank p = 0.0013). ESR1 mutations selected by prior hormone therapy are shown to be frequently sub clonal, with ESR1 ctDNA dynamics offering limited prediction of clinical outcome. These results suggest that early ctDNA dynamics may provide a robust biomarker for CDK4/6 inhibitors, with early ctDNA dynamics demonstrating divergent response of tumor sub clones to treatment.

Background Preoperative and perioperative aromatase inhibitor (POAI) therapy has the potential to improve outcomes in women with operable oestrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer. It has also been suggested that tumour Ki67 values after 2 weeks (Ki67 2W ) of POAI predicts individual patient outcome better than baseline Ki67 (Ki67 B ). The POETIC trial aimed to test these two hypotheses. MethodsPOETIC was an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial (done in 130 UK hospitals) in which postmenopausal women aged at least 50 years with WHO performance status 0-1 and hormone receptor-positive, operable breast cancer were randomly assigned (2:1) to POAI (letrozole 2•5 mg per day orally or anastrozole 1 mg per day orally) for 14 days before and following surgery or no POAI (control). Adjuvant treatment was given as per UK standard local practice. Randomisation was done centrally by computer-generated permuted block method (variable block size of six or nine) and was stratified by hospital. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to recurrence. A key second objective explored association between Ki67 (dichotomised at 10%) and disease outcomes. The primary analysis for clinical endpoints was by modified intention to treat (excluding patients who withdrew consent). For Ki67 biomarker association and endpoint analysis, the evaluable population included all randomly assigned patients who had paired Ki67 values available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02338310; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2007-003877-21; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN63882543. Recruitment is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing.

The limitations associated with switching adjustment methods such as the RPSFTM and IPCW mean that they are appropriate in different scenarios. In some scenarios, both methods may be prone to bias; "2-stage" methods should be considered, and intention-to-treat analyses may sometimes produce the least bias. The data requirements of adjustment methods also have important implications for clinical trialists.