234 Patient preference for choosing intra-operative or external-beam radiotherapy following breast conservation

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

BACKGROUND

Based on our laboratory work and clinical trials we hypothesised that radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer could be restricted to the tumour bed. In collaboration with the industry we developed a new radiotherapy device and a new surgical operation for delivering single-dose radiation to the tumour bed - the tissues at highest risk of local recurrence. We named it TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT). From 1998 we confirmed its feasibility and safety in pilot studies.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) over several weeks.

DESIGN

The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. Originally, randomisation occurred before initial lumpectomy (prepathology) and, if allocated TARGIT, the patient received it during the lumpectomy. Subsequently, the postpathology stratum was added in which randomisation occurred after initial lumpectomy, allowing potentially easier logistics and a more stringent case selection, but which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world.

SETTING

Thirty-three centres in 11 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Women who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size.

INTERVENTIONS

TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%; p = 0.04; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%; p = 0.31; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.0000000013). With delayed TARGIT postpathology (n = 1153), the between-group difference was larger than 2.5% and non-inferiority was not established for this stratum (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%; p = 0.069; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.9%; p = 0.77). Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%; p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.2%; p = 0.0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%; p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of > 90% of being cost-effective. There appears to be little uncertainty in the point estimates, based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. If TARGIT were given instead of EBRT in suitable patients, it might potentially reduce costs to the health-care providers in the UK by £8-9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs.

LIMITATIONS

The number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (< 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for > 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone-sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT.

FUTURE WORK

The analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684.

FUNDING

University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Shortened courses of radiation therapy have been shown to be similarly effective to whole-breast external-beam radiation therapy (WB-EBRT) in terms of local control. We sought to analyze, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of two radiation strategies for early-stage invasive breast cancer: single-dose intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) and the standard 6-week course of WB-EBRT.

METHODS

We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to evaluate these treatment strategies in terms of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over 10 years.

RESULTS

IORT single-dose intraoperative radiation therapy was the dominant, more cost-effective strategy, providing greater quality-adjusted life years at a decreased cost compared with 6-week WB-EBRT. The model was sensitive to health state utilities and recurrence rates, but not costs. IORT was either the preferred or dominant strategy across all sensitivity analyses. The two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate the need to accurately determine utility values for the two forms of radiation treatment and to avoid indiscriminate use of IORT.

CONCLUSIONS

With less cost and greater QALYs than WB-EBRT, IORT is the more valuable strategy. IORT offers a unique example of new technology that is less costly than the current standard of care option but offers similar efficacy. Even when considering the capital investment for the equipment ($425 K, low when compared with the investments required for robotic surgery or high-dose-rate brachytherapy), which could be recouped after 3-4 years conservatively, these results support IORT as a change in practice for treating early-stage invasive breast cancer.

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

After breast-conserving surgery, 90% of local recurrences occur within the index quadrant despite the presence of multicentric cancers elsewhere in the breast. Thus, restriction of radiation therapy to the tumour bed during surgery might be adequate for selected patients. We compared targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with the conventional policy of whole breast external beam radiotherapy.

METHODS

Having safely piloted the new technique of single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with Intrabeam, we launched the TARGIT-A trial on March 24, 2000. In this prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma undergoing breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from 28 centres in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive targeted intraoperative radiotherapy or whole breast external beam radiotherapy, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy. Neither patients nor investigators or their teams were masked to treatment assignment. Postoperative discovery of predefined factors (eg, lobular carcinoma) could trigger addition of external beam radiotherapy to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (in an expected 15% of patients). The primary outcome was local recurrence in the conserved breast. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 2.5% in the primary endpoint. All randomised patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684.

FINDINGS

1113 patients were randomly allocated to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 1119 were allocated to external beam radiotherapy. Of 996 patients who received the allocated treatment in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group, 854 (86%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy only and 142 (14%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy plus external beam radiotherapy. 1025 (92%) patients in the external beam radiotherapy group received the allocated treatment. At 4 years, there were six local recurrences in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and five in the external beam radiotherapy group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence in the conserved breast at 4 years was 1.20% (95% CI 0.53-2.71) in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 0.95% (0.39-2.31) in the external beam radiotherapy group (difference between groups 0.25%, -1.04 to 1.54; p=0.41). The frequency of any complications and major toxicity was similar in the two groups (for major toxicity, targeted intraoperative radiotherapy, 37 [3.3%] of 1113 vs external beam radiotherapy, 44 [3.9%] of 1119; p=0.44). Radiotherapy toxicity (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3) was lower in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group (six patients [0.5%]) than in the external beam radiotherapy group (23 patients [2.1%]; p=0.002).

INTERPRETATION

For selected patients with early breast cancer, a single dose of radiotherapy delivered at the time of surgery by use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy should be considered as an alternative to external beam radiotherapy delivered over several weeks.

FUNDING

University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).