Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CEC reports grants from Breast Cancer Now, Cancer Research UK (CRUK), Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR); participation in the Independent Data Monitoring Committees for the UK PivotalBoost trial (chair), the PROTIS phase III sinonasal proton versus IMRT trial (member), the TORPEdO Proton Beam Therapy trial (member); and a leadership role for the Lancet Breast Cancer Commission (chair). CHB reports grants and research support from AbbVie, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Polyphor, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Exelixis, Regeneron, Novartis, Henlius, Shanghai Henlius Biotech, GSK, Janssen, OBI Pharma, Eli Lilly, Seagen, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Novocure, Aveo Oncology, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, TRIO Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Celgene, Myovant, PPD, Syneos Health, DOCS, Labcorp, ICON, IQVIA, Parexel, Nuvisan, PSI, and Medpace; ownership or stocks in Tummi and MEDSir; and participation in advisory boards and consulting activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Zodiac, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Daiichi Sankyo. DAC reports research grants and support from Exact Sciences and Novartis; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech Pharma, Carnall Farrar, Sapience, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Exact Sciences, Gilead, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Grail; unremunerated leadership roles for Make Seconds Count (chair of charity trustees) and the Breast International Group (chair of board of not-for-profit research organisation); and receipt of funding for analysis and medical writing for Eli Lilly and Novartis. FC reports payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations and support for attending meetings and travel from Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, IQVIA, Macrogenics, Medscape, MSD, Merus, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Touch Independent Medical Education; institutional financial support for clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fresenius, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, Incyte, Nektar Therapeutics, Nerviano, Novartis, Macrogenics, MediGene, MedImmune, MSD, Millenium, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Sonus, Tesaro, Tigris, Wilex, and Wyeth; a leadership role for the ABC Global Alliance and ABC Consensus Conference and Guidelines (president); and membership of ESMO, ESO, EORTC-BCG, IBCSG, SOLTI, ASCO, AACR, EACR, SIS, and ASPIC. WC reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, and Eisai. PAF reports a former role in the scientific advisory committee of Breast Cancer Trials Australia and New Zealand cooperative group (chair). RJ reports support from the Susan G Komen Foundation; grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, and the American Cancer Society; serving as an expert witness for Kleinbard and Hawks Quindel Law; roles in the Board of Directors of ASCO (former member), ASTRO's Ethics Committee (chair), and the Women in Radiation Oncology Affinity Group (chair); membership on the Medical Advisory Board for Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; stock options for their advisory board role in Equity Quotient; and personal fees from the NIH, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Greenwall Foundation. FMK reports research grants from the ABC Global Alliance, Breast Cancer Now, Merck Serono WHO, MSD, Avon Cosmetics, the US Cancer Pain Relief Committee, and the Medical Research Council; consulting fees from Merck Serono and Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey Mexico; and leadership roles for the Board of Directors of Women in Global Health (unpaid member), Tómatelo a Pecho (unpaid president and founder), the Mexican Health Foundation (unpaid Senior Economist), and the Board of Directors of the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (unpaid member). SAMcI reports grant funding from the NIHR, CRUK, and Breast Cancer Now; honoraria from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Becton, Dickinson and Company; travel and conference support from Roche, Eli Lilly, and MSD; membership of advisory boards for Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, and Novartis; and roles for the UK National Cancer Research Institute Breast Research Group (unpaid chair) and the Royal College of Surgeons Breast Surgical Specialty Lead (unpaid). K-AP reports clinical trial funding from AstraZeneca (paid to institution) and unremunerated previous participation in AstraZeneca advisory boards. LR reports grants from the European Commission Horizon 2020 and the German Research Foundation and a role in the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (Chair of Board of Directors). MKT reports grants from Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust and CRUK. FA reports grants from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche and consulting fees from MedImmune, Gilead, Relay Therapeutics, and Guardant Health. JEA reports speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Eisai and conference travel support from AstraZeneca. ISB reports participation in the Roche advisory board for ESMO. JMB reports research grants from Breast Cancer Now, AstraZeneca, MSD, Puma Biotechnology, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, CRUK, and the NIHR. MAF is funded by a Conquer Cancer Breast Cancer Research Foundation Career Development Award for Diversity and Inclusion supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and reports financial support from the WeShare project. AF reports consultancy work for Oxford Immune Algorithmics; grants from Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust and the Ann McLaren Building Preclinical Imaging Suite of the University of Cambridge; and travel support from the University of Cambridge. DIR reports support from the University of Chicago Center for Global Health. DN reports research support from Cepheid; a grant from the US National Cancer Institute; and an unpaid leadership role with the WHO Global Breast Cancer Initiative. WER reports grants from the Cambia Health Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Rita and Alex Hillman Foundation; and book royalties from Springer Publishing and Jones & Bartlett Learning. JR reports funding from the NIHR and support from AstraZeneca for attendance at a teaching event. DS reports a leadership role at the Jamaica Cancer Care and Research Institute (co-director). HS reports membership of the Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank Advisory Board and voluntary patient membership of the Independent Cancer Patients' Voice charity; an honorarium from the CRUK Precision Grand Challenge; and support for travel expenses from Breast Cancer Now, CRUK, the Association of Breast Surgeons UK, and Breast International Group. IV-L reports grants from Resilience; consulting fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen; payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Novartis, Sandoz, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and support for travel and attending meetings from Novartis. CV-G reports grants from AstraZeneca and Roche; consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly; honoraria from Roche, Myriad Genetics, and Novartis; and support for attending meetings and travel from Roche, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Purpose: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on appropriate indications and techniques for partial breast irradiation (PBI) for patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ., Methods: ASTRO convened a task force to address 4 key questions focused on the appropriate indications and techniques for PBI as an alternative to whole breast irradiation (WBI) to result in similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) and toxicity outcomes. Also addressed were aspects related to the technical delivery of PBI, including dose-fractionation regimens, target volumes, and treatment parameters for different PBI techniques. The guideline is based on a systematic review provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Recommendations were created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength., Results: PBI delivered using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, multicatheter brachytherapy, and single-entry brachytherapy results in similar IBR as WBI with long-term follow-up. Some patient characteristics and tumor features were underrepresented in the randomized controlled trials, making it difficult to fully define IBR risks for patients with these features. Appropriate dose-fractionation regimens, target volume delineation, and treatment planning parameters for delivery of PBI are outlined. Intraoperative radiation therapy alone is associated with a higher IBR rate compared with WBI. A daily or every-other-day external beam PBI regimen is preferred over twice-daily regimens due to late toxicity concerns., Conclusions: Based on published data, the ASTRO task force has proposed recommendations to inform best clinical practices on the use of PBI., Competing Interests: Disclosures All task force members’ disclosure statements were reviewed before being invited and were shared with other task force members throughout the guideline's development. Those disclosures are published within this guideline. Where potential conflicts were detected, remedial measures to address them were taken. Bethany Anderson: American Board of Radiology (ABR) (board examiner), Brachytherapy Journal (section editor), Clinical Breast Cancer Journal (associate editor), International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (breast section associate editor), School of Breast Oncology (honoraria); Douglas Arthur: Advanced Radiation Therapy (consultant); Jose Bazan: ABR (board examiner), ASTRO VA Breast Panel (honoraria), International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (breast section associate editor), Intraop Medical (institutional research); Jennifer Bellon: American Board of Radiology (ABR) (oral exam chair-ended 8/2023), Leidos Pharmaceutical (honoraria), National Cancer Institute (NCI) (research; BOLD task force on breast cancer co-chair), Oncoclinicas (honoraria), PER (honoraria), Prosigna (research), UpToDate (honoraria), Varian (honoraria); Charlotte Coles: Breast Cancer Now (research), Cancer Research UK (research), Lancet Breast Cancer Commission (chair), National Institutes of Health and Care Research (NIHR) (research; IMPORT LOW trial chief investigator); Naamit Gerber: Accuray (advisory board-ended 10/2023), Invus Group (consultant), John Theurer Cancer Center (consultant), Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine (honoraria-ended 8/2022), PreludeDX (research); Leonard Kim: American Associations of Physicists in Medicine (subcommittee/working group chair), ABR (board examiner), Elekta (MR-Linac Consortium, institutional representative), The Greeley Company (consultant-ended 5/2022); Christine Laronga (Society of Surgical Oncology [SSO]representative): SSO Breast Disease Site (chair), UpToDate (section editor); Janice Lyons (Chair): ABR (board examiner), Primum (consultant); Icro Meattini: Accuray, Eli Lily, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen (all advisory board); Elizabeth Nichols: ABR (board examiner), Applied Radiation Oncology (editorial board), Xcision (research, co-chair); Lori Pierce (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] representative): ASCO (board chair), Breast Cancer Research Foundation (advisory board and travel), BMS Foundation DCIDCP National Advisory Committee (advisory board and travel), Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (board of directors and travel), Exact Sciences (consultant), Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (director), PER Educational Symposium (speakers bureau and travel), UpToDate (editor); Matthew Poppe: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (technical expert), Alliance for Breast Clinical Trials in Oncology (vice chair), Alliance for Breast Clinical Trials Local Regional Working Group (chair), Mevion (honoraria and travel-ended 3/2022), NIH (research), NIH/NCI (research-PI), PEEL Therapeutics (stock), UpToDate (editor); Simona Shaitelman (Vice Chair): Alpha Tau Medical (research-ended 2022), Artios Pharma (research-ended 2022), Becton, Dickinson & Co (consultant), Brachytherapy Journal (editorial board), Elekta (MR-Linac Consortium, institutional representative), Emerson Collective Foundation (research), Exact Sciences (research), NIH (research-ended 8/2023), TAE Life Sciences (research); Patti Spears (patient representative): Pfizer (advocate advisory care committee member-ended 12/2022); Shaveta Vinayak (ASCO representative): OncoSec Biotech (research and consultant), Pfizer, Puma Biotech, Seattle Genetics (all research); Timothy Whelan: Exact Sciences (research). Lisa Bradfield and Madeera Kathpal (Guideline Subcommittee representative) reported no disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become the standard of care for hormone receptor-positive (HR + ) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer, improving survival outcomes compared to endocrine therapy alone. Abemaciclib and ribociclib, in combination with endocrine therapy, have demonstrated significant benefits in invasive disease-free survival for high-risk HR+/HER2- early breast cancer patients. Each CDK4/6i-palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib-exhibits distinct toxicity profiles. Radiation therapy (RT) can be delivered with a palliative or ablative intent, particularly using stereotactic body radiation therapy for oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease. However, pivotal randomized trials lack information on concomitant CDK4/6i and RT, and existing preclinical and clinical data on the potential combined toxicities are limited and conflicting. As part of a broader effort to establish international consensus recommendations for integrating RT and targeted agents in breast cancer treatment, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety profile of combining CDK4/6i with palliative and ablative RT in both metastatic and early breast cancer settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 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.)

This article is an update of the requirements of a specialist breast centre, produced by EUSOMA and endorsed by ECCO as part of Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) programme, and ESMO. To meet aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this article, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 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: To describe the current European practise on post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in relation to breast reconstruction., Methods: A 21-item questionnaire was distributed online via Survey Monkey. Items referred to 1. general topics (country, centre, years of experience in breast cancer); 2. clinical decision making; 3. RT techniques and dosimetry; 4. dose fractionation., Results: 283 responses were received from 19 countries. Most responders worked in public health services and in academic institutions and had 5-20 years experience. Although many indicated they were consulted about the timing and type of breast reconstructive surgery, final decisions were most often made by surgeons. Immediate reconstruction with expander followed by RT and subsequently permanent reconstruction with prosthesis was recommended by 61.6% of responders. Most (48.4%) adviced a boost only when margins were close or involved with an another 17.7% recommending it in the presence of high-risk features (T3-T4, lympho-vascular involvement). Intensity modulated RT was rarely used by about two-thirds of responders, except when with 3D technique the dose constraints were not achieved or when regional lymph nodes were included. Almost 60% of responders did not use bolus/tissue equivalent material (TEM). The main indication for bolus/TEM use was skin involvement. The majority of responders used 1.8-2 Gy per fraction., Conclusions: The present survey highlighted controversial areas in clinical practise, confirming the uncertainties about the scheduling of PMRT and breast reconstruction., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Aims: There are two main surgical techniques for managing the tumour bed after breast cancer excision. Firstly, closing the defect by suturing the cavity walls together and secondly leaving the tumour bed open thus allowing seroma fluid to collect. There is debate regarding which technique is preferable, as it has been reported that a post-operative seroma increase post-operative infection rates and late normal tissue side effects., Methods: Data from 648 patients who participated in the Cambridge Breast IMRT trial were used. Seromas were identified on axial CT images at the time of radiotherapy planning and graded as not visible/subtle or easily visible. An association was sought between the presence of seroma and the development of post-operative infection, post-operative haematoma and 2 and 5 years normal tissue toxicity (assessed using serial photographs, clinical assessment and self assessment questionnaire)., Results: The presence of easily visible seroma was associated with increased risk of post-operative infection (OR = 1.80; p = 0.004) and post-operative haematoma (OR = 2.1; p = 0.02). Breast seroma was an independent risk factor for whole breast induration and tumour bed induration at 2 and 5 years. The presence of breast seroma was also associated with inferior overall cosmesis at 5 years. There was no significant association between the presence of seroma and the development of either breast shrinkage or breast pain., Conclusion: The presence of seroma at the time of radiotherapy planning is associated with increased rates of post-operative infection and haematoma. It is also an independent risk factor for late normal tissue toxicity. This study suggests that full thickness surgical closure may be desirable for patients undergoing breast conservation and radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Accurate tumour bed (TB) localisation is a key requirement for the UK IMPORT (Intensity Modulated Partial Organ Radiotherapy) trial. We audited the value of titanium clips for TB localisation following breast conserving surgery (BCS) in breast radiotherapy (RT) planning., Patients and Methods: At surgery, paired clips were positioned around the TB as follows: 1. Medial, lateral, superior and inferior: half-way between skin and fascia; 2. Posterior: at the pectoral fascia; 3. Anterior: close to the suture line. Thirty consecutive patients with clips inserted were audited at the time of RT planning. Audit standards were set as follows: (i) 5/6 pairs of clips identified on RT planning computed tomography (CT) scan - 100%; (ii) possible clip migration: <10%; (iii) TB localisation improved with clips: >50%. Inter- and intra-observer variability in clinician outlining of the TB was studied in a subset of 12 randomly selected patients to see if this impacted on positioning of radiotherapy field borders., Results: Five or six pairs of clips were identified in all 30 cases. The TB could be successfully identified using CT seroma alone in only 8/30 (27%) patients. Clips were essential for the TB localisation of the other 22/30 (73%) patients. There was no evidence of clip migration. TB localisation led to modified RT field borders in 18/30 (60%) patients. Five of these patients had highly visible seromas, so the addition of clips modified field borders in 13/30 (43%) patients. Both inter- and intra-observer variability was reasonable and did not impact on positioning of radiotherapy field borders., Conclusion: Titanium clips provide an accurate and reliable method of TB localisation following BCS. We anticipate that the audit results will lead to clips being adopted as best practice by the Association of Breast Surgeons (ABS) at BASO (British Association of Surgical Oncology).