Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of Breast Irradiation Following Lumpectomy and Axillary Disection for Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Clark, Roy M.; McCulloch, Peter; Levine, Mark; Lipa, Michael; Wilkinson, Robert H.; Mahoney, Leo J.; Basrur, V.; Nair, Bhavani D.; McDermot, Rebecca S.R.; Wong, Christine; Corbett, P J

doi:10.1093/jnci/84.9.683

Cited by 365 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6,54 We chose the non-inferiority margin as an absolute difference of 2.5% because this seemed clinically acceptable to physicians and patients. However, during the past decade recurrence rates have substantially reduced.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

Vaidya

Wenz

Bulsara

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBased on our laboratory work and clinical trials we hypothesised that radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer could be restricted to the tumour bed. In collaboration with the industry we developed a new radiotherapy device and a new surgical operation for delivering single-dose radiation to the tumour bed – the tissues at highest risk of local recurrence. We named it TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT). From 1998 we confirmed its feasibility and safety in pilot studies.ObjectiveTo compare TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) over several weeks.DesignThe TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. Originally, randomisation occurredbeforeinitial lumpectomy (prepathology) and, if allocated TARGIT, the patient received it during the lumpectomy. Subsequently, the postpathology stratum was added in which randomisation occurredafterinitial lumpectomy, allowing potentially easier logistics and a more stringent case selection, but which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world.SettingThirty-three centres in 11 countries.ParticipantsWomen who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size.InterventionsTARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality.ResultsIn total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan–Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%;p = 0.04; Pnon-inferiority = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%;p = 0.31; Pnon-inferiority = 0.0000000013). With delayed TARGIT postpathology (n = 1153), the between-group difference was larger than 2.5% and non-inferiority was not established for this stratum (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%;p = 0.069; Pnon-inferiority = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.9%;p = 0.77). Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%;p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.2%;p = 0.0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%;p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of > 90% of being cost-effective. There appears to be little uncertainty in the point estimates, based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. If TARGIT were given instead of EBRT in suitable patients, it might potentially reduce costs to the health-care providers in the UK by £8–9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs.LimitationsThe number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (< 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for > 5 years.ConclusionsFor patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone-sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT.Future workThe analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684.FundingUniversity College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

Vaidya

Wenz

Bulsara

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early clinical data established whole breast radiation delivered over 5 to 7 weeks of daily treatment as the standard to reduce the risk of long-term toxicity (2)(3)(4)(5). In the 1990s, data became available showing that shorter courses (3-4 weeks) of treatment might be as effective without increasing toxicity (6). Owing to wide variations in the patterns of care surrounding fractionation (7,8), multiple randomized trials directly comparing hypofractionation with standard radiation were initiated, with recent long-term results confirming equivalence (9-13).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Radiation Oncologists on the Early Adoption of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Boero

Gillespie

Hou

et al. 2017

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis study evaluated the impact of radiation oncologists on the early adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Using SEERMedicare data and multilevel, multivariable logistic models, we assessed the impact of radiation oncologist and geographic practice area on the likelihood of receiving hypofractionated radiation therapy. The key finding of our study was that the individual radiation oncologist heavily influenced the decision to pursue hypofractionation.Purpose: Despite multiple randomized trials showing the efficacy of hypofractionated radiation therapy in early-stage breast cancer, the United States has been slow to adopt this treatment. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of individual radiation oncologists on the early adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Methods: We identified 22,233 Medicare beneficiaries with localized breast cancer that was diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 who underwent breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation. Multilevel, multivariable logistic models clustered by radiation oncologist and geographic practice area were used to determine the impact of the provider and geographic region on the likelihood of receiving hypofractionated compared with standard fractionated radiation therapy while controlling for a patient's clinical and demographic covariates. Odds ratios (OR) describe the impact of demographic or clinical covariates, and the median OR (MOR) describes the relative impact of the individual radiation oncologist and geographic region on the likelihood of undergoing hypofractionated radiation therapy. Results: Among the entire cohort, 2333 women (10.4%) were treated with hypofractionated radiation therapy, with unadjusted rates ranging from 0.0% in the bottom quintile of radiation oncologists to 30.4% in the top quintile. Multivariable analysis found that the individual radiation oncologist (MOR 3.08) had a greater impact on the use of hypofractionation than did geographic region (MOR 2. Radiation OncologyInternational Journal of biology physics www.redjournal.org long-term randomized trial results in early 2010. Male physician and radiation oncologists treating the highest volume of breast cancer patients were less likely to perform hypofractionation (P<.05). Conclusions: The individual radiation oncologist strongly influenced the likelihood of a patient's receiving hypofractionated radiation therapy, and this trend increased despite the publication of long-term data showing equivalence to standard fractionation. Future research should focus on physician-related factors that influence this decision. Ó

show abstract

“…The rationale for partial breast radiotherapy (PBRT) after breast conservation surgery for early breast cancer includes the assumption that most ipsilateral breast tumor relapses (IBTR) developing outside the index quadrant are new primary (NP) tumors that are not prevented by radiotherapy (1)(2)(3). Several phase I and II studies evaluating accelerated PBRT have reported promising early results, with few local tumor relapses, while maintaining excellent cosmetic outcomes and minimum toxicity (4)(5)(6)(7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Relapse: Local Recurrence Versus New Primary Tumor and the Effect of Whole-Breast Radiotherapy on the Rate of New Primaries

Gujral

Sumo

Owen³

et al. 2011

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The justification for partial breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery assumes that ipsilateral breast tumor relapses (IBTR) outside the index quadrant are mostly new primary (NP) tumors that develop despite radiotherapy. We tested the hypothesis that whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) is ineffective in preventing NP by comparing development rates in irradiated and contralateral breasts after tumor excision and WBRT. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively reviewed 1,410 women with breast cancer who were entered into a prospective randomized trial of radiotherapy fractionation and monitored annually for ipsilateral breast tumor relapses (IBTR) and contralateral breast cancer (CLBC). Cases of IBTR were classified into local recurrence (LR) or NP tumors based on location and histology and were subdivided as definite or likely depending on clinical data. Rates of ipsilateral NP and CLBC were compared over a 15-year period of follow-up. Results: At a median follow-up of 10.1 years, there were 150 documented cases of IBTR: 118 (79%) cases were definite or likely LR; 27 (18%) cases were definite or likely NP; and 5 (3%) cases could not be classified. There were 71 cases of CLBC. The crude proportion of definite-plus-likely NP was 1.9% (27/1,410) patients compared with 5% (71/1,410) CLBC patients. Cumulative incidence rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were 0.8%, 2.0%, and 3.5%, respectively, for definite-plus-likely NP and 2.4%, 5.8%, and 7.9%, respectively for CLBC, suggesting a difference in the rates of NP and CLBC. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that WBRT reduces the rate of ipsilateral NP tumors. The late presentation of NP has implications for the reporting of trials that are testing partial breast radiotherapy. Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc.Breast cancer, Ipsilateral, Contralateral, Relapse, Radiotherapy.

show abstract

Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of Breast Irradiation Following Lumpectomy and Axillary Disection for Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Abstract: Further follow-up may define an acceptable low-risk group for breast relapse. Until then, we recommend that all patients receive breast irradiation. Systemic adjuvant therapy should be considered for patients with poor nuclear grade tumors.

Cited by 365 publications

References 0 publications

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

The Impact of Radiation Oncologists on the Early Adoption of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Relapse: Local Recurrence Versus New Primary Tumor and the Effect of Whole-Breast Radiotherapy on the Rate of New Primaries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About