OC-0595: FAST-Forward phase 3 RCT of 1-week hypofractionated breast radiotherapy:3-year normal tissue effects

One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT

Background

FAST-Forward aimed to identify a 5-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy delivered in 1 week that was non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and as safe as the standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Published acute toxicity and 5-year results are presented here with other aspects of the trial.

Design

Multicentre phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3pN0-1M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (3 weeks), 27 Gy or 26 Gy in 5 fractions (1 week) whole breast/chest wall (Main Trial). Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio = 1.81). Normal tissue effects were assessed independently by clinicians, patients and photographs.

Sub-studies

Two acute skin toxicity sub-studies were undertaken to confirm safety of the test schedules. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade ≥ 3 acute breast skin toxicity at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Nodal Sub-Study patients had breast/chest wall plus axillary radiotherapy testing the same three schedules, reduced to the 40 and 26 Gy groups on amendment, with the primary endpoint of 5-year patient-reported arm/hand swelling.

Limitations

A sequential hypofractionated or simultaneous integrated boost has not been studied.

Participants

Ninety-seven UK centres recruited 4096 patients (1361:40 Gy, 1367:27 Gy, 1368:26 Gy) into the Main Trial from November 2011 to June 2014. The Nodal Sub-Study recruited an additional 469 patients from 50 UK centres. One hundred and ninety and 162 Main Trial patients were included in the acute toxicity sub-studies.

Results

Acute toxicity sub-studies evaluable patients: (1) acute grade 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity reported in 40 Gy/15 fractions 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5 fractions 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5 fractions 3/52 (5.8%). (2) Grade 3 common toxicity criteria for adverse effects toxicity reported for one patient. At 71-month median follow-up in the Main Trial, 79 ipsilateral breast tumour relapse events (40 Gy: 31, 27 Gy: 27, 26 Gy: 21); hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) versus 40 Gy were 27 Gy: 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44), 26 Gy: 0.67 (0.38 to 1.16). With 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1) 5-year incidence ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy, estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy (non-inferiority test) were -0.3% (-1.0-0.9) for 27 Gy (p = 0.0022) and -0.7% (-1.3-0.3) for 26 Gy (p = 0.00019). Five-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast normal tissue effects was 40 Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27 Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26 Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1 to 5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy were 1.55 (1.32 to 1.83; p < 0.0001) for 27 Gy and 1.12 (0.94-1.34; p = 0.20) for 26 Gy. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effects risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy. Nodal Sub-Study reported no arm/hand swelling in 80% and 77% in 40 Gy and 26 Gy at baseline, and 73% and 76% at 24 months. The prevalence of moderate/marked arm/hand swelling at 24 months was 10% versus 7% for 40 Gy compared with 26 Gy.

Interpretation

Five-year local tumour incidence and normal tissue effects prevalence show 26 Gy in 5 fractions in 1 week is a safe and effective alternative to 40 Gy in 15 fractions for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer.

Future work

Ten-year Main Trial follow-up is essential. Inclusion in hypofractionation meta-analysis ongoing. A future hypofractionated boost trial is strongly supported.

Trial registration

FAST-Forward was sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and was registered as ISRCTN19906132.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/01/47) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Radiotherapy challenges in COVID era

The pandemic caused by the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) associated with a disease named COVID-19 by the World Health Organization that began in late 2019 in Wuhan city has become a global public health problem. Only 2 months later, the new virus affected most countries of the world, the consequence being an overload of health systems, especially Intensive Care Units. Considered a category of patients at high risk of developing severe forms of the disease, cancer patients can develop a severe form of the disease, complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation. Radiotherapy, as a treatment included in the multidisciplinary management of cancer for both curative and palliative purposes, is also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19-positive or -suspected patients are a special category for which the decision to postpone treatment should be made based on the particularities of tumor biology and the radiobiological effect of a gap in radiation fractions delivery. Emergencies including spinal cord compressions, tumor bleeding, and brain metastases not responsive to corticosteroid treatment, should be considered a priority but the palliative treatment should be limited from one single fraction to maximum five fractions for spinal cord compression and whole brain radiotherapy. Radiotherapy for brain metastases does not bring a benefit in terms of overall survival for patients with life expectancy of days or weeks and dexamethasone treatment is the correct choice in this situation. In all settings, the approach of radiotherapy treatment must be adapted for both scenarios of an outbreak pandemic, when general measures of social distancing and protection by specific equipment of patients and radiotherapy staff are a priority, but also for a long period of coexistence with the virus with possible new “pandemic waves.”

Implementation of breast cancer continuum of care in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide. The current COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented challenge leading to care disruption, which is more severe in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) due to existing economic obstacles. This review presents the global perspective and preparedness plans for breast cancer continuum of care amid the COVID-19 outbreak and discusses challenges faced by LMIC in implementing these strategies. Prioritization and triage of breast cancer patients in a multidisciplinary team setting are of paramount importance. Deescalation of systemic and radiation therapy can be utilized safely in selected clinical scenarios. The presence of a framework and resource-adapted recommendations exploiting available evidence-based data with judicious personalized use of current resources is essential for breast cancer care in LMIC during the COVID-19 pandemic.

GEICAM Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women in Spain. During the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, patients with BC still require timely treatment and follow-up; however, hospitals are overwhelmed with infected patients and, if exposed, patients with BC are at higher risk for infection and serious complications if infected. Thus, health care providers need to evaluate each BC treatment and in-hospital visit to minimize pandemic-associated risks while maintaining adequate treatment efficacy. Here we present a set of guidelines regarding available options for BC patient management and treatment by BC subtype in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Owing to the lack of evidence about COVID-19 infection, these recommendations are mainly based on expert opinion, medical organizations' and societies' recommendations, and some published evidence. We consider this a useful tool to facilitate medical decision making in this health crisis situation we are facing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This work presents a set of guidelines regarding available options for breast cancer (BC) patient management and treatment by BC subtype in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Owing to the suddenness of this health crisis, specialists have to make decisions with little evidence at hand. Thus, these expert guidelines may be a useful tool to facilitate medical decision making in the context of a worldwide pandemic with no resources to spare.

Recommendations for triage, prioritization and treatment of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) associated disease (COVID-19) outbreak seriously challenges globally all health care systems and professionals. Expert projections estimate that despite social distancing and lockdown being practiced, we have yet to feel the full impact of COVID-19. In this manuscript we provide guidance to prepare for the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer patients and advise on how to triage, prioritize and organize diagnostic procedures, surgical, radiation and medical treatments.

Diagnosis and locoregional treatment of patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic

We are facing a pandemic that is going to affect a significant part of the population. At the end of April in the world there are about 3,000,000 cases, with 205,000 deaths and 860,000 patients recovered.

The response to this pandemic has in many cases led to a significant change in the daily work of caring for cancer patients, the good results of which depend largely on time-adjusted protocols and multidisciplinary treatments.

We present a review of local, surgical and radiotherapy treatment together with authors’ recommendations made from personal experience on ways to act in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The multidisciplinary Breast Committees must continue to meet weekly in videoconference format. All surgical actions and irradiations must be carried out with maximum safety for both the patients and the participating teams. Hypofractionation in radiation therapy should be the standard treatment. Sometimes it is recommended to apply a primary systemic treatment or even a primary irradiation. Great coordination between the surgical and oncology teams, both medical and radiotherapeutic, is essential.

3 fraction pencil-beam scanning proton accelerated partial breast irradiation: early provider and patient reported outcomes of a novel regimen

Background and purpose

To report dosimetry and early adverse effects, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of a prospective study of 3-fraction pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton accelerated partial irradiation (APBI).

Materials and methods

Eligibility included women age ≥ 50 years with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), sentinel lymph node negative invasive or in-situ breast cancer measuring ≤2.5 cm. The prescription was 21.9 Gy (RBE 1.1) in 3 daily fractions to the post-operative tumor bed with a 1 cm expansion. Toxicities were collected using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0, 10-point Linear Analog Scale Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the CTCAE, and the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale.

Results

Seventy-six women were treated between 2015 and 2017. The median breast volume receiving 50% of prescription or more was 28%. Median mean heart, mean ipsilateral lung, and maximum skin dose were 0 Gy, 0.1 Gy, and 20.6 Gy, respectively. With a median follow-up of 12 months, no treatment-related toxicity grade ≥ 2 has been observed. Most common grade 1 adverse events were dermatitis (68%) and skin hyperpigmentation (18%). At 12 months, the only persistent toxicities were one patient with grade 1 breast edema and one patient with a grade 1 seroma. 90% of patients reported quality of life as ≥7 out of 10 (0 indicating “as bad as it can be” and 10 indicating “as good as it can be”) and 98% of patients reported excellent or good cosmesis.

Conclusion

3-fraction PBS proton APBI is well tolerated with low rates of physician and patient reported early adverse effects. Follow-up is ongoing to assess late toxicities and disease control outcomes. Further investigation of this novel adjuvant treatment strategy is warranted.