BACKGROUND: Platform trial designs are used increasingly in cancer clinical research and are considered an efficient model for evaluating multiple compounds within a single disease or disease subtype. However, these trial designs can be challenging to operationalise. The use of platform trials in oncology clinical research has increased considerably in recent years as advances in molecular biology enable molecularly defined stratification of patient populations and targeted therapy evaluation. Whereas multiple separate trials may be deemed infeasible, platform designs allow efficient, parallel evaluation of multiple targeted therapies in relatively small biologically defined patient sub-populations with the promise of increased molecular screening efficiency and reduced time for drug evaluation. Whilst the theoretical efficiencies are widely reported, the operational challenges associated with these designs (complexity, cost, regulatory, resource) are not always well understood. MAIN: In this commentary, we describe our practical experience of the implementation and delivery of the UK plasmaMATCH trial, a platform trial in advanced breast cancer, comprising an integrated screening component and multiple parallel downstream mutation-directed therapeutic cohorts. plasmaMATCH reported its primary results within 3 years of opening to recruitment. We reflect on the operational challenges encountered and share lessons learnt to inform the successful conduct of future trials. Key to the success of the plasmaMATCH trial was well co-ordinated stakeholder engagement by an experienced clinical trials unit with expert methodology and trial management expertise, a federated model of clinical leadership, a well-written protocol integrating screening and treatment components and including justification for the chosen structure and intentions for future adaptions, and an integrated funding model with streamlined contractual arrangements across multiple partners. Findings based on our practical experience include the importance of early engagement with the regulators and consideration of a flexible resource infrastructure to allow adequate resource allocation to support concurrent trial activities as adaptions are implemented in parallel to the continued management of patient safety and data quality of the ongoing trial cohorts. CONCLUSION: Platform trial designs allow the efficient reporting of multiple treatment cohorts. Operational challenges can be overcome through multidisciplinary engagement, streamlined contracting processes, rationalised protocol and database design and appropriate resourcing..

PURPOSE: Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, improves progression-free survival in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer. However, the benefit of adding everolimus to ET in the adjuvant setting in early breast cancer is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind phase III study, women with high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to everolimus or placebo for 2 years combined with standard ET. Stratification factors included ET agent, receipt of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, progesterone receptor status, duration of ET before random assignment, and lymph node involvement. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01805271). RESULTS: Between June 2013 and March 2020, 1,278 patients were randomly allocated to receive everolimus or placebo. At the first interim analysis, the trial was stopped for futility and a full analysis undertaken once data snapshot complete. One hundred forty-seven patients have had a DFS event reported and at 3 years, DFS did not differ between patients who received ET plus everolimus (88% [95% CI, 85 to 91]) or ET plus placebo (89% [95% CI, 86 to 91; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .77]). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 22.9% of patients (29.9% with everolimus v 15.9% with placebo, P < .001). 53.4% everolimus-treated patients permanently discontinued experimental treatment early compared with placebo-treated 22.3%. CONCLUSION: Among high-risk patients, everolimus added to adjuvant ET did not improve DFS. Tolerability was a concern, with more than half of patients stopping everolimus before study completion. Everolimus cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting..

PURPOSE: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for advanced breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, the potential value of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has not been confirmed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the prospective, randomized, phase III PALLAS trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone (for at least 5 years). The primary end point of the study was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary end points were invasive breast cancer-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, locoregional cancer-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among 5,796 patients enrolled at 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over 3 years, 5,761 were included in the intention-to-treat population. At the final protocol-defined analysis, at a median follow-up of 31 months, iDFS events occurred in 253 of 2,884 (8.8%) patients who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and in 263 of 2,877 (9.1%) patients who received endocrine therapy alone, with similar results between the two treatment groups (iDFS at 4 years: 84.2% v 84.5%; hazard ratio, 0.96; CI, 0.81 to 1.14; P = .65). No significant differences were observed for secondary time-to-event end points, and subgroup analyses did not show any differences by subgroup. There were no new safety signals for palbociclib in this trial. CONCLUSION: At this final analysis of the PALLAS trial, the addition of adjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone in patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer..

IMPORTANCE: Patients with breast cancer remain at risk of relapse after adjuvant therapy. Celecoxib has shown antitumor effects in preclinical models of human breast cancer, but clinical evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of celecoxib as an addition to conventional therapy for women with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative primary breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Randomized European Celecoxib Trial (REACT) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study conducted in 160 centers across the UK and Germany testing 2 years of adjuvant celecoxib vs placebo among 2639 patients recruited between January 19, 2007, and November 1, 2012, with follow-up 10 years after treatment completion. Eligible patients had completely resected breast cancer with local and systemic therapy according to local practice. Patients with ERBB2-positive or node-negative and T1, grade 1 tumors were not eligible. Randomization was in a 2:1 ratio between celecoxib or placebo. Statistical analysis was performed from May 5, 2019, to March 5, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received celecoxib, 400 mg, or placebo once daily for 2 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank analysis. Follow-up is complete. RESULTS: A total of 2639 patients (median age, 55.2 years [range, 26.8-86.0 years]) were recruited; 1763 received celecoxib, and 876 received placebo. Most patients' tumors (1930 [73%]) were estrogen receptor positive or progesterone receptor positive and ERBB2 negative. A total of 1265 patients (48%) had node-positive disease, and 1111 (42%) had grade 3 tumors. At a median follow-up of 74.3 months (interquartile range, 61.4-93.6 years), DFS events had been reported for 487 patients (19%): 18% for those who received celecoxib (n = 323; 5-year DFS rate = 84%) vs 19% for those who received placebo (n = 164; 5-year DFS rate = 83%); the unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.17; log-rank P = .75). Rates of toxic effects were low across both treatment groups, with no evidence of a difference. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, patients showed no evidence of a DFS benefit for 2 years' treatment with celecoxib compared with placebo as adjuvant treatment of ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Longer-term treatment or use of a higher dose of celecoxib may lead to a DFS benefit, but further studies would be required to test this possibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02429427 and isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN48254013..

PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007, provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial end points. Given the evolution of breast cancer clinical trials and improvements in outcomes, a panel of experts reviewed the STEEP criteria to determine whether modifications are needed. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov for adjuvant systemic and local-regional therapy trials for breast cancer to investigate if the primary end points reported met STEEP criteria. On the basis of common STEEP deviations, we performed a series of simulations to evaluate the effect of excluding non-breast cancer deaths and new nonbreast primary cancers from the invasive disease-free survival end point. RESULTS: Among 11 phase III breast cancer trials with primary efficacy end points, three had primary end points that followed STEEP criteria, four used STEEP definitions but not the corresponding end point names, and four used end points that were not included in the original STEEP manuscript. Simulation modeling demonstrated that inclusion of second nonbreast primary cancer can increase the probability of incorrect inferences, can decrease power to detect clinically relevant efficacy effects, and may mask differences in recurrence rates, especially when recurrence rates are low. CONCLUSION: We recommend an additional end point, invasive breast cancer-free survival, which includes all invasive disease-free survival events except second nonbreast primary cancers. This end point should be considered for trials in which the toxicities of agents are well-known and where the risk of second primary cancer is small. Additionally, we provide end point recommendations for local therapy trials, low-risk populations, noninferiority trials, and trials incorporating patient-reported outcomes..

The genomics of advanced breast cancer (ABC) has been described through tumour tissue biopsy sequencing, although these approaches are limited by geographical and temporal heterogeneity. Here we use plasma circulating tumour DNA sequencing to interrogate the genomic profile of ABC in 800 patients in the plasmaMATCH trial. We demonstrate diverse subclonal resistance mutations, including enrichment of HER2 mutations in HER2 positive disease, co-occurring ESR1 and MAP kinase pathway mutations in HR + HER2- disease that associate with poor overall survival (p = 0.0092), and multiple PIK3CA mutations in HR + disease that associate with short progression free survival on fulvestrant (p = 0.0036). The fraction of cancer with a mutation, the clonal dominance of a mutation, varied between genes, and within hotspot mutations of ESR1 and PIK3CA. In ER-positive breast cancer subclonal mutations were enriched in an APOBEC mutational signature, with second hit PIK3CA mutations acquired subclonally and at sites characteristic of APOBEC mutagenesis. This study utilises circulating tumour DNA analysis in a large clinical trial to demonstrate the subclonal diversification of pre-treated advanced breast cancer, identifying distinct mutational processes in advanced ER-positive breast cancer, and novel therapeutic opportunities..

An important challenge in the field of cancer is finding the balance between delivering effective treatments and avoiding adverse effects and financial toxicity caused by innovative, yet expensive, drugs. To address this, several treatment de-escalation trials have been conducted, but only a few of these have provided clear answers. A few trials had poor accrual or had design flaws that led to conflicting results. Members of the Breast International Group (BIG) and North American Breast Cancer Group (NABCG) believe the way forward is to understand the lessons from these trials and listen more carefully to what truly matters to our patients. We reviewed several adjuvant trials of different cancer types and developed a road map for improving the design and implementation of future de-escalation trials. The road map incorporates patients' insights obtained through focused group discussions across the BIG-NABCG networks. Considerations for the development of de-escalation trials for systemic adjuvant treatment, including noninferiority trial design, choice of end points, and prioritization of a patient's perspectives, are presented in this consensus article..

PURPOSE: Previous studies of hypofractionated adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer established a 15- or 16-fraction (fr) regimen as standard. The FAST Trial (CRUKE/04/015) evaluated normal tissue effects (NTE) and disease outcomes after 5-fr regimens. Ten-year results are presented. METHODS: Women ≥ 50 years of age with low-risk invasive breast carcinoma (pT1-2 pN0) were randomly assigned to 50 Gy/25 fr (5 weeks) or 30 or 28.5 Gy in 5 once-weekly fr of 6.0 or 5.7 Gy. The primary end point was change in photographic breast appearance at 2 and 5 years; secondary end points were physician assessments of NTE and local tumor control. Odds ratios (ORs) from longitudinal analyses compared regimens. RESULTS: A total of 915 women were recruited from 18 UK centers (2004-2007). Five-year photographs were available for 615/862 (71%) eligible patients. ORs for change in photographic breast appearance were 1.64 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.49; P = .019) for 30 Gy and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.71; P = .686) for 28.5 Gy versus 50 Gy. α/β estimate for photographic end point was 2.7 Gy (95% CI, 1.5 to 3.9 Gy), giving a 5-fr schedule of 28 Gy (95% CI, 26 to 30 Gy) estimated to be isoeffective with 50 Gy/25 fr. ORs for any moderate/marked physician-assessed breast NTE (shrinkage, induration, telangiectasia, edema) were 2.12 (95% CI, 1.55 to 2.89; P < .001) for 30 Gy and 1.22 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.72; P = .248) for 28.5 Gy versus 50 Gy. With 9.9 years median follow-up, 11 ipsilateral breast cancer events (50 Gy: 3; 30 Gy: 4; 28.5 Gy: 4) and 96 deaths (50 Gy: 30; 30 Gy: 33; 28.5 Gy: 33) have occurred. CONCLUSION: At 10 years, there was no significant difference in NTE rates after 28.5 Gy/5 fr compared with 50 Gy/25 fr, but NTE were higher after 30 Gy/5 fr. Results confirm the published 3-year findings that a once-weekly 5-fr schedule of whole-breast radiotherapy can be identified that appears to be radiobiologically comparable for NTE to a conventionally fractionated regimen..

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing might provide a current assessment of the genomic profile of advanced cancer, without the need to repeat tumour biopsy. We aimed to assess the accuracy of ctDNA testing in advanced breast cancer and the ability of ctDNA testing to select patients for mutation-directed therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicohort, phase 2a, platform trial of ctDNA testing in 18 UK hospitals. Participants were women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients had completed at least one previous line of treatment for advanced breast cancer or relapsed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts matched to mutations identified in ctDNA: cohort A comprised patients with ESR1 mutations (treated with intramuscular extended-dose fulvestrant 500 mg); cohort B comprised patients with HER2 mutations (treated with oral neratinib 240 mg, and if oestrogen receptor-positive with intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); cohort C comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-positive cancer (treated with oral capivasertib 400 mg plus intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); and cohort D comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-negative cancer or PTEN mutation (treated with oral capivasertib 480 mg). Each cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate. For cohort A, 13 or more responses among 78 evaluable patients were required to infer activity and three or more among 16 were required for cohorts B, C, and D. Recruitment to all cohorts is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03182634; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2015-003735-36; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16945804. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2016, and April 26, 2019, 1051 patients registered for the study, with ctDNA results available for 1034 patients. Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and targeted sequencing was 96-99% (n=800, kappa 0·89-0·93). Sensitivity of digital PCR ctDNA testing for mutations identified in tissue sequencing was 93% (95% CI 83-98) overall and 98% (87-100) with contemporaneous biopsies. In all cohorts, combined median follow-up was 14·4 months (IQR 7·0-23·7). Cohorts B and C met or exceeded the target number of responses, with five (25% [95% CI 9-49]) of 20 patients in cohort B and four (22% [6-48]) of 18 patients in cohort C having a response. Cohorts A and D did not reach the target number of responses, with six (8% [95% CI 3-17]) of 74 in cohort A and two (11% [1-33]) of 19 patients in cohort D having a response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were raised gamma-glutamyltransferase (13 [16%] of 80 patients; cohort A); diarrhoea (four [25%] of 20; cohort B); fatigue (four [22%] of 18; cohort C); and rash (five [26%] of 19; cohort D). 17 serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients, and there was one treatment-related death caused by grade 4 dyspnoea (in cohort C). INTERPRETATION: ctDNA testing offers accurate, rapid genotyping that enables the selection of mutation-directed therapies for patients with breast cancer, with sufficient clinical validity for adoption into routine clinical practice. Our results demonstrate clinically relevant activity of targeted therapies against rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations, confirming these mutations could be targetable for breast cancer treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, and Puma Biotechnology..

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 (Ki672W) of POAI predicts individual patient outcome better than baseline Ki67 (Ki67B). The POETIC trial aimed to test these two hypotheses. METHODS: POETIC 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. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2008, and April 16, 2014, 4480 women were recruited and randomly assigned to POAI (n=2976) or control (n=1504). On Feb 6, 2018, median follow-up was 62·9 months (IQR 58·1-74·1). 434 (10%) of 4480 women had a breast cancer recurrence (280 [9%] POAI; 154 [10%] control), hazard ratio 0·92 (95% CI 0·75-1·12); p=0·40 with the proportion free from breast cancer recurrence at 5 years of 91·0% (95% CI 89·9-92·0) for patients in the POAI group and 90·4% (88·7-91·9) in the control group. Within the POAI-treated HER2-negative subpopulation, 5-year recurrence risk in women with low Ki67B and Ki672W (low-low) was 4·3% (95% CI 2·9-6·3), 8·4% (6·8-10·5) with high Ki67B and low Ki672W (high-low) and 21·5% (17·1-27·0) with high Ki67B and Ki672W (high-high). Within the POAI-treated HER2-positive subpopulation, 5-year recurrence risk in the low-low group was 10·1% (95% CI 3·2-31·3), 7·7% (3·4-17·5) in the high-low group, and 15·7% (10·1-24·4) in the high-high group. The most commonly reported grade 3 adverse events were hot flushes (20 [1%] of 2801 patients in the POAI group vs six [<1%] of 1400 in the control group) and musculoskeletal pain (29 [1%] vs 13 [1%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: POAI has not been shown to improve treatment outcome, but can be used without detriment to help select appropriate adjuvant therapy based on tumour Ki67. Most patients with low Ki67B or low POAI-induced Ki672W do well with adjuvant standard endocrine therapy (giving consideration to clinical-pathological factors), whereas those whose POAI-induced Ki672W remains high might benefit from further adjuvant treatment or trials of new therapies. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK..

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..

PURPOSE: IMPORT LOW demonstrated noninferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for local relapse and similar or reduced toxicity at 5 years. Comprehensive patient-reported outcome measures collected at serial time points are now reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: IMPORT LOW recruited women with low-risk breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to 40 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy (control), 36 Gy whole-breast and 40 Gy partial-breast radiotherapy (reduced-dose), or 40 Gy partial-breast radiotherapy only (partial-breast) in 15 fractions. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires Core 30 and Breast Cancer-Specific Module, Body Image Scale, protocol-specific items, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 5 years. Patterns of moderate/marked adverse effects (AEs) were assessed using longitudinal regression models, and baseline predictors were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 41 of 71 centers participated in the patient-reported outcome measures substudy; 1,265 (95%) of 1,333 patients consented, and 557 (58%) of 962 reported no moderate/marked AEs at 5 years. Breast appearance change was most prevalent and persisted over time (approximately 20% at each time point). Prevalence of breast hardness, pain, oversensitivity, edema, and skin changes reduced over time ( P < .001 for each), whereas breast shrinkage increased ( P < .001). Analysis by treatment group showed average number of AEs per person was lower in partial-breast (incidence rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.84; P < .001) and reduced-dose (incidence rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.90; P < .001) versus whole-breast group and decreased over time in all groups. Younger age, larger breast size/surgical deficit, lymph node positivity, and higher levels of anxiety/depression were baseline predictors of subsequent AE reporting. CONCLUSION: Most AEs reduced over time, with fewer AEs in the partial-breast and reduced-dose groups. Baseline predictors for AE reporting were identified. These findings will facilitate informed discussion and shared decision making for future patients receiving moderately hypofractionated breast radiotherapy..

BACKGROUND: Alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma that is unresponsive to chemotherapy. Cediranib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has shown substantial activity in ASPS in non-randomised studies. The Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma (CASPS) study was designed to discriminate the effect of cediranib from the intrinsically indolent nature of ASPS. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial, we recruited participants from 12 hospitals in the UK (n=7), Spain (n=3), and Australia (n=2). Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older; metastatic ASPS that had progressed in the previous 6 months; had an ECOG performance status of 0-1; life expectancy of more than 12 weeks; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Participants had to have no anti-cancer treatment within 4 weeks before trial entry, with exception of palliative radiotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1), with allocation by use of computer-generated random permuted blocks of six, to either cediranib (30 mg orally, once daily) or matching placebo tablets for 24 weeks. Treatment was supplied in number-coded bottles, masking participants and clinicians to assignment. Participants were unblinded at week 24 or sooner if they had progression defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1); those on placebo crossed over to cediranib and all participants continued on treatment until progression or death. The primary endpoint was percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters between baseline and week 24 or progression if sooner, assessed in the evaluable population (all randomly assigned participants who had a scan at week 24 [or sooner if they progressed] with target marker lesions measured). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01337401; the European Clinical Trials database, number EudraCT2010-021163-33; and the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN63733470 recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2011, and July 29, 2016, of 48 participants recruited, all were randomly assigned to cediranib (n=32) or placebo (n=16). 23 (48%) were female and the median age was 31 years (IQR 27-45). Median follow-up was 34·3 months (IQR 23·7-55·6) at the time of data cutoff for these analyses (April 11, 2018). Four participants in the cediranib group were not evaluable for the primary endpoint (one did not start treatment, and three did not have their scan at 24 weeks). Median percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters for the evaluable population was -8·3% (IQR -26·5 to 5·9) with cediranib versus 13·4% (IQR 1·1 to 21·3) with placebo (one-sided p=0·0010). The most common grade 3 adverse events on (blinded) cediranib were hypertension (six [19%] of 31) and diarrhoea (two [6%]). 15 serious adverse reactions in 12 patients were reported; 12 of these reactions occurred on open-label cediranib, and the most common symptoms were dehydration (n=2), vomiting (n=2), and proteinuria (n=2). One probable treatment-related death (intracranial haemorrhage) occurred 41 days after starting open-label cediranib in a patient who was assigned to placebo in the masked phase. INTERPRETATION: Given the high incidence of metastatic disease and poor long-term prognosis of ASPS, together with the lack of efficacy of conventional chemotherapy, our finding of significant clinical activity with cediranib in this disease is an important step towards the goal of long-term disease control for these young patients. Future clinical trials in ASPS are also likely to involve immune checkpoint inhibitors. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca..

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..

Germline mutations in BRCA1/2 predispose individuals to breast cancer (termed germline-mutated BRCA1/2 breast cancer, gBRCA-BC) by impairing homologous recombination (HR) and causing genomic instability. HR also repairs DNA lesions caused by platinum agents and PARP inhibitors. Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) harbor subpopulations with BRCA1/2 mutations, hypothesized to be especially platinum-sensitive. Cancers in putative 'BRCAness' subgroups-tumors with BRCA1 methylation; low levels of BRCA1 mRNA (BRCA1 mRNA-low); or mutational signatures for HR deficiency and those with basal phenotypes-may also be sensitive to platinum. We assessed the efficacy of carboplatin and another mechanistically distinct therapy, docetaxel, in a phase 3 trial in subjects with unselected advanced TNBC. A prespecified protocol enabled biomarker-treatment interaction analyses in gBRCA-BC and BRCAness subgroups. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). In the unselected population (376 subjects; 188 carboplatin, 188 docetaxel), carboplatin was not more active than docetaxel (ORR, 31.4% versus 34.0%, respectively; P = 0.66). In contrast, in subjects with gBRCA-BC, carboplatin had double the ORR of docetaxel (68% versus 33%, respectively; biomarker, treatment interaction P = 0.01). Such benefit was not observed for subjects with BRCA1 methylation, BRCA1 mRNA-low tumors or a high score in a Myriad HRD assay. Significant interaction between treatment and the basal-like subtype was driven by high docetaxel response in the nonbasal subgroup. We conclude that patients with advanced TNBC benefit from characterization of BRCA1/2 mutations, but not BRCA1 methylation or Myriad HRD analyses, to inform choices on platinum-based chemotherapy. Additionally, gene expression analysis of basal-like cancers may also influence treatment selection..

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..

BACKGROUND: Incorporation of a taxane as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer offers potential for further improvement of anthracycline-based treatment. The UK TACT study (CRUK01/001) investigated whether sequential docetaxel after anthracycline chemotherapy would improve patient outcome compared with standard chemotherapy of similar duration. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial, 4162 women (aged >18 years) with node-positive or high-risk node-negative operable early breast cancer were randomly assigned by computer-generated permuted block randomisation to receive FEC (fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2), epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) at 3-weekly intervals) for four cycles followed by docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) at 3-weekly intervals) for four cycles (n=2073) or control (n=2089). For the control regimen, centres chose either FEC for eight cycles (n=1265) or epirubicin (100 mg/m(2) at 3-weekly intervals) for four cycles followed by CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2), methotrexate 40 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) at 4-weekly intervals) for four cycles (n=824). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN79718493. FINDINGS: All randomised patients were included in the ITT population. With a median follow-up of 62 months, disease-free survival events were seen in 517 of 2073 patients in the experimental group compared with 539 of 2089 controls (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.85-1.08; p=0.44). 75.6% (95% CI 73.7-77.5) of patients in the experimental group and 74.3% (72.3-76.2) of controls were alive and disease-free at 5 years. The proportion of patients who reported any acute grade 3 or 4 adverse event was significantly greater in the experimental group than in the control group (p<0.0001); the most frequent events were neutropenia (937 events vs 797 events), leucopenia (507 vs 362), and lethargy (456 vs 272). INTERPRETATION: This study did not show any overall gain from the addition of docetaxel to standard anthracycline chemotherapy. Exploration of predictive biomarker-defined subgroups might have the potential to better target the use of taxane-based therapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK 01/001), Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, and Roche..

BACKGROUND: The international standard radiotherapy schedule for breast cancer treatment delivers a high total dose in 25 small daily doses (fractions). However, a lower total dose delivered in fewer, larger fractions (hypofractionation) is hypothesised to be at least as safe and effective as the standard treatment. We tested two dose levels of a 13-fraction schedule against the standard regimen with the aim of measuring the sensitivity of normal and malignant tissues to fraction size. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2002, 2236 women with early breast cancer (pT1-3a pN0-1 M0) at 17 centres in the UK were randomly assigned after primary surgery to receive 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2.0 Gy versus 41.6 Gy or 39 Gy in 13 fractions of 3.2 Gy or 3.0 Gy over 5 weeks. Women were eligible if they were aged over 18 years, did not have an immediate surgical reconstruction, and were available for follow-up. Randomisation method was computer generated and was not blinded. The protocol-specified principal endpoints were local-regional tumour relapse, defined as reappearance of cancer at irradiated sites, late normal tissue effects, and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN59368779. FINDINGS: 749 women were assigned to the 50 Gy group, 750 to the 41.6 Gy group, and 737 to the 39 Gy group. After a median follow up of 5.1 years (IQR 4.4-6.0) the rate of local-regional tumour relapse at 5 years was 3.6% (95% CI 2.2-5.1) after 50 Gy, 3.5% (95% CI 2.1-4.3) after 41.6 Gy, and 5.2% (95% CI 3.5-6.9) after 39 Gy. The estimated absolute differences in 5-year local-regional relapse rates compared with 50 Gy were 0.2% (95% CI -1.3% to 2.6%) after 41.6 Gy and 0.9% (95% CI -0.8% to 3.7%) after 39 Gy. Photographic and patient self-assessments suggested lower rates of late adverse effects after 39 Gy than with 50 Gy, with an HR for late change in breast appearance (photographic) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.52-0.91, p=0.01). From a planned meta-analysis with the pilot trial, the adjusted estimates of alpha/beta value for tumour control was 4.6 Gy (95% CI 1.1-8.1) and for late change in breast appearance (photographic) was 3.4 Gy (95% CI 2.3-4.5). INTERPRETATION: The data are consistent with the hypothesis that breast cancer and the dose-limiting normal tissues respond similarly to change in radiotherapy fraction size. 41.6 Gy in 13 fractions was similar to the control regimen of 50 Gy in 25 fractions in terms of local-regional tumour control and late normal tissue effects, a result consistent with the result of START Trial B. A lower total dose in a smaller number of fractions could offer similar rates of tumour control and normal tissue damage as the international standard fractionation schedule of 50 Gy in 25 fractions..

BACKGROUND: The international standard radiotherapy schedule for early breast cancer delivers 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2.0 Gy over 5 weeks, but there is a long history of non-standard regimens delivering a lower total dose using fewer, larger fractions (hypofractionation). We aimed to test the benefits of radiotherapy schedules using fraction sizes larger than 2.0 Gy in terms of local-regional tumour control, normal tissue responses, quality of life, and economic consequences in women prescribed post-operative radiotherapy. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2001, 2215 women with early breast cancer (pT1-3a pN0-1 M0) at 23 centres in the UK were randomly assigned after primary surgery to receive 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2.0 Gy over 5 weeks or 40 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy over 3 weeks. Women were eligible for the trial if they were aged over 18 years, did not have an immediate reconstruction, and were available for follow-up. Randomisation method was computer generated and was not blinded. The protocol-specified principal endpoints were local-regional tumour relapse, defined as reappearance of cancer at irradiated sites, late normal tissue effects, and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN59368779. FINDINGS: 1105 women were assigned to the 50 Gy group and 1110 to the 40 Gy group. After a median follow up of 6.0 years (IQR 5.0-6.2) the rate of local-regional tumour relapse at 5 years was 2.2% (95% CI 1.3-3.1) in the 40 Gy group and 3.3% (95% CI 2.2 to 4.5) in the 50 Gy group, representing an absolute difference of -0.7% (95% CI -1.7% to 0.9%)--ie, the absolute difference in local-regional relapse could be up to 1.7% better and at most 1% worse after 40 Gy than after 50 Gy. Photographic and patient self-assessments indicated lower rates of late adverse effects after 40 Gy than after 50 Gy. INTERPRETATION: A radiation schedule delivering 40 Gy in 15 fractions seems to offer rates of local-regional tumour relapse and late adverse effects at least as favourable as the standard schedule of 50 Gy in 25 fractions..

.

.

.