Search

Background: Most newly diagnosed oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers are treated with chemoradiotherapy with curative intent but at the consequence of adverse effects on quality of life. We aimed to investigate if dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) reduced radiation dose to the dysphagia and aspiration related structures and improved swallowing function compared with standard IMRT., Methods: DARS was a parallel-group, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 22 radiotherapy centres in Ireland and the UK. Participants were aged 18 years and older, had T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer, a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and no pre-existing swallowing dysfunction. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation algorithm (balancing factors: centre, chemotherapy use, tumour type, American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour stage) to receive DO-IMRT or standard IMRT. Participants and speech language therapists were masked to treatment allocation. Radiotherapy was given in 30 fractions over 6 weeks. Dose was 65 Gy to primary and nodal tumour and 54 Gy to remaining pharyngeal subsite and nodal areas at risk of microscopic disease. For DO-IMRT, the volume of the superior and middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle or inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle lying outside the high-dose target volume had a mandatory 50 Gy mean dose constraint. The primary endpoint was MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score 12 months after radiotherapy, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population that included only patients who completed a 12-month assessment; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN25458988, and is complete., Findings: From June 24, 2016, to April 27, 2018, 118 patients were registered, 112 of whom were randomly assigned (56 to each treatment group). 22 (20%) participants were female and 90 (80%) were male; median age was 57 years (IQR 52-62). Median follow-up was 39·5 months (IQR 37·8-50·0). Patients in the DO-IMRT group had significantly higher MDADI composite scores at 12 months than patients in the standard IMRT group (mean score 77·7 [SD 16·1] vs 70·6 [17·3]; mean difference 7·2 [95% CI 0·4-13·9]; p=0·037). 25 serious adverse events (16 serious adverse events assessed as unrelated to study treatment [nine in the DO-IMRT group and seven in the standard IMRT group] and nine serious adverse reactions [two vs seven]) were reported in 23 patients. The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (nine [16%] of 55 in the DO-IMRT group vs seven [13%] of 55 in the standard IMRT group), dry mouth (three [5%] vs eight [15%]), and dysphagia (three [5%] vs eight [15%]). There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Our findings suggest that DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care for patients receiving radiotherapy for pharyngeal cancers., Funding: Cancer Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CN reports research funding paid to their institution from Cancer Research UK and stock options from Advanced Oncotherapy. LF, MAS, ME, and EH report research funding paid to their institution from Cancer Research UK. EH reports grants received by their institution as contribution to support central trial costs for non-commercial trials from Accuray, Varian Medical Systems, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche Products, and Merck Sharp and Dohm. CB reports leadership roles for OncoDNA and RCR Cyclotron Trust (unpaid). TR reports membership of the POPPY Trial independent data monitoring committee and being Vice President of Clinical Oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A tumour-bed boost delivered after whole-breast radiotherapy increases local cancer-control rates but requires more patient visits and can increase breast hardness. IMPORT HIGH tested simultaneous integrated boost against sequential boost with the aim of reducing treatment duration while maintaining excellent local control and similar or reduced toxicity., Methods: IMPORT HIGH is a phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial that recruited women after breast-conserving surgery for pT1-3pN0-3aM0 invasive carcinoma from radiotherapy and referral centres in the UK. Patients were randomly allocated to receive one of three treatments in a 1:1:1 ratio, with computer-generated random permuted blocks used to stratify patients by centre. The control group received 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast and 16 Gy in 8 fractions sequential photon tumour-bed boost. Test group 1 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 48 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. Test group 2 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 53 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. The boost clinical target volume was the clip-defined tumour bed. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse (IBTR) analysed by intention to treat; assuming 5% 5-year incidence with the control group, non-inferiority was predefined as 3% or less absolute excess in the test groups (upper limit of two-sided 95% CI). Adverse events were assessed by clinicians, patients, and photographs. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN47437448, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between March 4, 2009, and Sept 16, 2015, 2617 patients were recruited. 871 individuals were assigned to the control group, 874 to test group 1, and 872 to test group 2. Median boost clinical target volume was 13 cm 3 (IQR 7 to 22). At a median follow-up of 74 months there were 76 IBTR events (20 for the control group, 21 for test group 1, and 35 for test group 2). 5-year IBTR incidence was 1·9% (95% CI 1·2 to 3·1) for the control group, 2·0% (1·2 to 3·2) for test group 1, and 3·2% (2·2 to 4·7) for test group 2. The estimated absolute differences versus the control group were 0·1% (-0·8 to 1·7) for test group 1 and 1·4% (0·03 to 3·8) for test group 2. The upper confidence limit for test group 1 versus the control group indicated non-inferiority for 48 Gy. Cumulative 5-year incidence of clinician-reported moderate or marked breast induration was 11·5% for the control group, 10·6% for test group 1 (p=0·40 vs control group), and 15·5% for test group 2 (p=0·015 vs control group)., Interpretation: In all groups 5-year IBTR incidence was lower than the 5% originally expected regardless of boost sequencing. Dose-escalation is not advantageous. 5-year moderate or marked adverse event rates were low using small boost volumes. Simultaneous integrated boost in IMPORT HIGH was safe and reduced patient visits., Funding: Cancer Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JMB, EMD, ME, CLG, JSH, PH, MAS, JCT, and YT report grants from Cancer Research UK during the conduct of the study. SVL reports PhD funding from Cancer Research UK. JMB reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis (previously GlaxoSmithKline), Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Roche outside the submitted work. CEC reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation, RADNET, the Lancet Breast Cancer Commission, and Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust outside the submitted work. CEC also reports membership of five external independent monitoring committees and is Chair of the Lancet Breast Cancer Commission. AMK is President of the European Society of Radiation Oncology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: EPHOS-B aimed to determine whether perioperative anti-HER2 therapy inhibited proliferation and/or increased apoptosis in HER2-positive breast cancer., Patients and Methods: This randomized phase II, two-part, multicenter trial included newly diagnosed women with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer due to undergo surgery. Patients were randomized to: part 1 (1:2:2), no treatment (control), trastuzumab or lapatinib; part 2 (1:1:2) control, trastuzumab, or lapatinib and trastuzumab combination. Treatment was given for 11 days presurgery. Coprimary endpoints were change in Ki67 and apoptosis between baseline and surgery tumor samples (biologic response: ≥30% change). Central pathology review scored residual cancer burden (RCB). Relapse-free survival (RFS) explored long-term effects., Results: Between November 2010 and September 2015, 257 patients were randomized (part 1: control 22, trastuzumab 57, lapatinib 51; part 2: control 29, trastuzumab 32, combination 66). Ki67 response was evaluable for 223 patients: in part 1 Ki67 response occurred in 29/44 (66%) lapatinib versus 18/49 (37%) trastuzumab (P = 0.007) and 1/22 (5%) control (P < 0.0001); in part 2 in 36/49 (74%) combination versus 14/31 (45%) trastuzumab (P = 0.02) and 2/28 (7%) control (P < 0.0001). No significant increase in apoptosis after 11 days was seen in treatment groups. Six patients achieved complete pathologic response (pCR, RCB0) and 13 RCB1, all but two in the combination group. After 6 years median follow-up, 28 (11%) had recurrence and 19 (7%) died. No recurrences or deaths were observed among patients who achieved a pCR. Ki67% falls ≥50% associated with fewer recurrences (P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Early response after short duration anti-HER2 dual therapy identifies cancers dependent on the HER2 pathway providing a strategy for exploring risk-adapted individualized treatment de-escalation., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Radical (chemo)radiotherapy offers potentially curative treatment for patients with locally advanced laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. We aimed to show that dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DE-IMRT) improved locoregional control., Methods: We performed a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer (AJCC III-IVa/b, TNM 7). Patients were randomised (1:1) to DE-IMRT or standard dose IMRT (ST-IMRT) using a minimisation algorithm, balancing for centre, tumour site, nodal status and chemotherapy use. DE-IMRT was 67.2 gray (Gy) in 28 fractions (f) to the primary tumour and 56Gy/28f to at-risk nodes; ST-IMRT was 65Gy/30f to primary tumour and 54Gy/30f to at-risk nodes. Suitable patients received 2 cycles of concomitant cisplatin and up to 3 cycles of platinum-based induction chemotherapy. The primary end-point was time to locoregional failure analysed by intention-to-treat analysis using competing risk methodology., Findings: Between February 2011 and October 2015, 276 patients (138 ST-IMRT; 138 DE-IMRT) were randomised. A preplanned interim futility analysis met the criterion for early closure. After a median follow-up of 47.9 months (interquartile range 37.5-60.5), there were locoregional failures in 38 of 138 (27.5%) ST-IMRT patients and 42 of 138 (30.4%) DE-IMRT patients; an adjusted subhazard ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.83, p = 0.519) indicated no evidence of benefit with DE-IMRT. Acute grade 2 pharyngeal mucositis was reported more frequently with DE-IMRT than with ST-IMRT (42% vs. 32%). No differences in grade ≥3 acute or late toxicity rates were seen., Conclusion: DE-IMRT did not improve locoregional control in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. The trial is registered: ISRCTN01483375., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: B.F. reports personal fees and other fees from BMS, outside the submitted work. D.B. reports support from National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study. E.H. reports grants from Cancer Research UK, during the conduct of the study, grants from Accuray Inc., grants from Varian Medical Systems Inc., grants and non-financial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants from Janssen-Cilag, grants and non-financial support from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., grants from Kyowa Hakko UK, grants from Alliance Pharma (previously Cambridge Laboratories) and grants from Aventis Pharma Limited (Sanofi), outside the submitted work. H.M. reports personal fees from Warwickshire Head Neck Clinic Ltd, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from MSD, Sanofi Pasteur and Merck, grants from GSK Biologicals, MSD, Sanofi Pasteur, Silence Therapeutics, GSK PLC and AstraZeneca and other from Sanofi Pasteur, MSD and Merck, outside the submitted work. K.J.H. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Pfizer and grants and personal fees from Replimune, outside the submitted work. P.S. reports personal fees from advisory board work for AbbVie and non-financial support from Phillips and Accuray, outside the submitted work. The below mentioned authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article: C.M.N., C.L.G., M.B., V.C., S.F., C.M.W., A.S., N.P., T.G.U., M.S., W.S., M.R., K.W., S.R., E.J., A.C., T.R., C.S., S.A.B., Do.G., A.M., M.E., De.G. and J.P.M., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: About 40-60% of patients treated with post-operative radiotherapy for parotid cancer experience ipsilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce radiation dose to the cochlea. COSTAR, a phase III trial, investigated the role of cochlear-sparing IMRT (CS-IMRT) in reducing hearing loss., Methods: Patients (pT1-4 N0-3 M0) were randomly assigned (1:1) to 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or CS-IMRT by minimisation, balancing for centre and radiation dose of 60Gy or 65Gy in 30 daily fractions. The primary end-point was proportion of patients with sensorineural hearing loss in the ipsilateral cochlea of ≥10 dB bone conduction at 4000 Hz 12 months after radiotherapy compared using Fisher's exact test. Secondary end-points included hearing loss at 6 and 24 months, balance assessment, acute and late toxicity, patient-reported quality of life, time to recurrence and survival., Results: From Aug 2008 to Feb 2013, 110 patients (54 3DCRT; 56 CS-IMRT) were enrolled from 22 UK centres. Median doses to the ipsilateral cochlea were 3DCRT: 56.2Gy and CS-IMRT: 35.7Gy (p < 0.0001). 67/110 (61%) patients were evaluable for the primary end-point; main reasons for non-evaluability were non-attendance at follow-up or incomplete audiology assessment. At 12 months, 14/36 (39%) 3DCRT and 11/31 (36%) CS-IMRT patients had ≥10 dB loss (p = 0.81). No statistically significant differences were observed in hearing loss at 6 or 24 months or in other secondary end-points including patient-reported hearing outcomes., Conclusion: CS-IMRT reduced the radiation dose below the accepted tolerance of the cochlea, but this did not lead to a reduction in the proportion of patients with clinically relevant hearing loss., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Plain English Summary: Breast cancer is a diverse and varied disease. Recent research has shown that the collection of multiple biopsies before surgery can help researchers determine how the cancer is responding to treatment and can predict for long-term outcomes. However biopsies can be uncomfortable, and sometimes clinicians and research teams in hospitals may be reluctant to offer clinical trials requiring several biopsies to patients who have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) oversees a large number of breast cancer clinical trials where multiple biopsies are required. ICR-CTSU recognises that patient advocates (patients who have previously had, or cared for someone with, cancer) are key members of the trial design group and should be involved in the clinical trial throughout its lifespan. Patient advocates can provide reassurance regarding the acceptability of trial designs involving multiple biopsies from a patient perspective. This paper summarises patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU breast cancer trials activity and how this has benefited our research., Abstract: The importance of collecting tissue samples in breast cancer has become increasingly recognised, as the diversity of the disease has become better known. It has been documented in recent research that tumours may change in response to treatment prior to surgery (the neoadjuvant treatment setting). The collection of sequential biopsies over time can identify changes within tumours and potentially predict how the tumour may respond to certain treatments. However, the acceptability of multiple biopsies amongst patients, clinicians and other research staff in hospitals is variable and recruitment into clinical trials requiring multiple biopsies may be challenging.The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) is responsible for a portfolio of breast cancer trials where multiple biopsies are key to the trial design. Patient advocate involvement has been essential in helping us to design and deliver complex and innovative cancer trials which require multiple invasive tissue biopsies, often without any direct benefit to the trial participants. The views expressed by patient advocates involved in ICR-CTSU trials supports the published evidence that patients are willing to donate additional tissue for research and that clinicians' concerns about approaching patients for trials involving multiple biopsies are often unfounded.Patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU trials activity takes various forms, from membership on protocol development groups and trial management groups, attendance at focus groups and forums, and presentations at trial development and launch meetings. This involvement has provided reassurance to research teams within the NHS and research ethics committees of the importance and acceptability of our trials from a patient perspective. Patient advocate involvement throughout the lifetime of our trials ensures that the patient remains central to our research considerations., Competing Interests: All clinical trials mentioned by name in this paper had full ethical review and approval, all patients that took part with the studies consented to do so. Further details: IMPACT was approved first by a national multicenter research ethical committee and subsequently by individual local research ethics committees; POETIC – South East Research Ethics Committee, 08/H1102/37; PALLET – London Fulham Research Ethics Committee, 14/LO/1291.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Persistent dysphagia following primary chemoradiation (CRT) for head and neck cancers can have a devastating impact on patients' quality of life. Single arm studies have shown that the dosimetric sparing of critical swallowing structures such as the pharyngeal constrictor muscle and supraglottic larynx can translate to better functional outcomes. However, there are no current randomised studies to confirm the benefits of such swallow sparing strategies. The aim of Dysphagia/Aspiration at risk structures (DARS) trial is to determine whether reducing the dose to the pharyngeal constrictors with dysphagia-optimised intensity- modulated radiotherapy (Do-IMRT) will lead to an improvement in long- term swallowing function without having any detrimental impact on disease-specific survival outcomes., Methods/design: The DARS trial (CRUK/14/014) is a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) for patients undergoing primary (chemo) radiotherapy for T1-4, N0-3, M0 pharyngeal cancers. Patients will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to either standard IMRT (S-IMRT) or Do-IMRT. Radiotherapy doses will be the same in both groups; however in patients allocated to Do-IMRT, irradiation of the pharyngeal musculature will be reduced by delivering IMRT identifying the pharyngeal muscles as organs at risk. The primary endpoint of the trial is the difference in the mean MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score, a patient-reported outcome, measured at 12 months post radiotherapy. Secondary endpoints include prospective and longitudinal evaluation of swallow outcomes incorporating a range of subjective and objective assessments, quality of life measures, loco-regional control and overall survival. Patients and speech and language therapists (SLTs) will both be blinded to treatment allocation arm to minimise outcome-reporting bias., Discussion: DARS is the first RCT investigating the effect of swallow sparing strategies on improving long-term swallowing outcomes in pharyngeal cancers. An integral part of the study is the multidimensional approach to swallowing assessment, providing robust data for the standardisation of future swallow outcome measures. A translational sub- study, which may lead to the development of future predictive and prognostic biomarkers, is also planned., Trial Registration: This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, ISRCTN25458988 (04/01/2016).

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often fail to recruit sufficient participants, despite altruism being cited as their motivation. Previous investigations of factors influencing participation decisions have been methodologically limited. This study evaluated how women weigh up different motivations after initially expressing altruism, and explored their understanding of a trial and its alternatives. The trial was the 'Quality of Life after Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction' (QUEST) trial., Methods: Thirty-nine women participated in qualitative interviews 1 month post-surgery. Twenty-seven women (10 trial decliners and 17 acceptors) who spontaneously mentioned 'altruism' were selected for thematic analysis. Verbatim transcripts were coded independently by two researchers. Participants' motivations to accept or decline randomisation were cross-referenced with their understanding of the QUEST trials and the process of randomisation., Results: The seven emerging themes were: (1) altruism expressed by acceptors and decliners; (2) overriding personal needs in decliners; (3) pure altruism in acceptors; (4) 'hypothetical altruism' amongst acceptors; (5) weak altruism amongst acceptors; (6) conditional altruism amongst acceptors; and (7) sense of duty to participate. Poor understanding of the trial rationale and its implications was also evident., Conclusions: Altruism was a motivating factor for participation in the QUEST randomised controlled trials where the main outcomes comprised quality of life and allocated treatments comprised established surgical procedures. Women's decisions were influenced by their understanding of the trial. Both acceptors and decliners of the trial expressed 'altruism', but most acceptors lacked an obvious treatment preference, hoped for personal benefits regarding a treatment allocation, or did not articulate complete understanding of the trial., Trial Registration: QUEST A, ISRCTN38846532 ; Date assigned 6 January 2010. QUEST B, ISRCTN92581226 ; Date assigned 6 January 2010.

Background: Docetaxel and vinorelbine have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This prospective feasibility study compared the efficacy of these two treatments in MBC., Methods: Patients with MBC progressing following anthracycline treatment were randomly assigned to either docetaxel (100 mg/m(2)day 1 q3W) or vinorelbine (25mg/m(2) day 1 q2W). Patients were eligible to cross over at progression. Objective response rates (ORR), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were measured., Results: 37 patients were randomised. 2 patients were excluded due to protocol violations. Of 35 remaining patients 17 received docetaxel and 18 received vinorelbine per protocol. ORR was 12.5% and 6.0% respectively for docetaxel and vinorelbine. The median time to progression was 10.4 weeks (range 6-14 weeks) in docetaxel arm and 7.6 weeks (range 4-11 weeks) in vinorelbine arm (p = .82). The clinical benefit rate (defined as complete response, partial response plus stable disease) was 44% in the docetaxel arm and 12% in the vinorelbine arm. Based on intent to treat the median OS in the docetaxel arm was 34 weeks (95% CI, 20.7-48) and 21.2 weeks (95% CI, 17-25.4) in vinorelbine arm (p = .388). 16 patients crossed over, 5 from docetaxel to vinorelbine and 11 from vinorelbine to docetaxel. At cross over the ORR was 0% and 18% on cross over to vinorelbine and docetaxel respectively with a median TTP of 17.3 weeks (95% CI, 16.3-18.1) and 18.7 weeks (95% CI, 13.9-23.4) for those receiving vinorebine and docetaxel at cross over respectively. Vinorelbine however was much better tolerated with fewer grade 3-4 toxicity events (n = 4) than docetaxel (n = 27)., Discussion: While docetaxel resulted in a longer TTP and OS in this study it did not reach statistical significance. TTP duration for those patients who crossed over was similar, but overwhelmingly vinorelbine had fewer significant grade 3-4 toxicities than docetaxel. Only two previous randomized studies have compared the efficacy of single agent docetaxel and vinorelbine following prior anthracycline exposure, one in an unselected population [16], and the other, HERNATA, in HER2 positive disease with trastuzumab used in both arms [17]. The patients randomized in this study were relatively heavily pretreated with the majority having received 2-3 lines of prior treatment for their metastatic disease. The lower response rates with vinorelbine as compared to docetaxel in this study concur with results reported in other studies [16]. However, the numbers in both this study and the other unselected study [16] are small and need to be interpreted with caution. With regard to toxicity, in the present study, grade 3-4 hematological adverse events and infection were tenfold greater with docetaxel as compared with vinorelbine, consistent with results in HERNATA [17]. While others have reported a significantly higher number of overall grade 3-4 toxicities with vinorelbine [16], the fact that, as in HERNATA, discontinuations due to toxicities in that study [16] were significantly greater with docetaxel as compared to vinorelbine suggests either the toxicity data collected did not reflect the true toxicities on treatment or that docetaxel toxicities were in some way more severe or protracted leading to more numerous discontinuations [16]. Larger randomized studies are needed to determine (1) the efficacy of docetaxel versus vinorelbine in anthracycline pretreated disease and (2) the efficacy of vinorelbine after prior taxane exposure, and particularly how it may compares both with regard to efficacy and tolerability with other possible regimens that may utilized such as carboplatin-gemcitabine [20] or eribulin [21]. The longer as well as comparable TTP at cross over for both agents compared to that upfront suggests there may be enrichment at cross over of a group of patients who are not only fit for further treatment but are more likely to a derive continued benefit from additional treatment.

Background and Purpose: Randomised trials testing 15- or 16-fraction regimens of adjuvant radiotherapy in women with early breast cancer have reported favourable outcomes compared with standard fractionation. To evaluate hypofractionation further, two 5-fraction schedules delivering 1 fraction per week have been tested against a 25-fraction regimen., Materials and Methods: Women aged ⩾50years with node negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned after microscopic complete tumour resection to 50Gy in 25 fractions versus 28.5 or 30Gy in 5 once-weekly fractions of 5.7 or 6.0Gy, respectively, to the whole breast. The primary endpoint was 2-year change in photographic breast appearance., Results: Nine hundred and fifteen women were recruited from 2004 to 2007. Seven hundred and twenty-nine patients had 2-year photographic assessments. Risk ratios for mild/marked change were 1.70 (95% CI 1.26-2.29, p<0.001) for 30Gy and 1.15 (0.82-1.60, p=0.489) for 28.5Gy versus 50Gy. Three-year rates of physician-assessed moderate/marked adverse effects in the breast were 17.3% (13.3-22.3%, p<0.001) for 30Gy and 11.1% (7.9-15.6%, p=0.18) for 28.5Gy compared with 9.5% (6.5-13.7%) after 50Gy. With a median follow-up in survivors of 37.3months, 2 local tumour relapses and 23 deaths have occurred., Conclusions: At 3years median follow-up, 28.5Gy in 5 fractions is comparable to 50Gy in 25 fractions, and significantly milder than 30Gy in 5 fractions, in terms of adverse effects in the breast., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Xerostomia 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., Methods: We 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., Findings: 47 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., Interpretation: Sparing 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 for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck., Funding: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005)., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)