Ellen M. Donovan

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.

Objective: The purpose of this UK study was to evaluate interfraction reproducibility and body image score when using ultraviolet (UV) tattoos (not visible in ambient lighting) for external references during breast/chest wall radiotherapy and compare with conventional dark ink. Methods: In this non-blinded, single-centre, parallel group, randomized control trial, patients were allocated to receive either conventional dark ink or UV ink tattoos using computer-generated random blocks. Participant assignment was not masked. Systematic (∑) and random (σ) setup errors were determined using electronic portal images. Body image questionnaires were completed at pre-treatment, 1 month and 6 months to determine the impact of tattoo type on body image. The primary end point was to determine that UV tattoo random error (σ setup) was no less accurate than with conventional dark ink tattoos, i.e. <2.8 mm. Results: 46 patients were randomized to receive conventional dark or UV ink tattoos. 45 patients completed treatment (UV: n = 23, dark: n = 22). σ setup for the UV tattoo group was <2.8 mm in the u and v directions (p = 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively). A larger proportion of patients reported improvement in body image score in the UV tattoo group compared with the dark ink group at 1 month [56% (13/23) vs 14% (3/22), respectively] and 6 months [52% (11/21) vs 38% (8/21), respectively]. Conclusion: UV tattoos were associated with interfraction setup reproducibility comparable with conventional dark ink. Patients reported a more favourable change in body image score up to 6 months following treatment. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to evaluate UV tattoo external references in a randomized control trial.

The purpose of the work was to estimate the dose received by the heart throughout a course of breath-holding breast radiotherapy. 113 cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were acquired for 20 patients treated within the HeartSpare 1A study, in which both an active breathing control (ABC) device and a voluntary breath-hold (VBH) method were used. Predicted mean heart doses were obtained from treatment plans. CBCT scans were imported into a treatment planning system, heart outlines defined, images registered to the CT planning scan and mean heart dose recorded. Two observers outlined two cases three times each to assess interobserver and intraobserver variation. There were no statistically significant differences between ABC and VBH heart dose data from CT planning scans, or in the CBCT-based estimates of heart dose, and no effect from the order of the breath-hold method. Variation in mean heart dose per fraction over the three imaged fractions was <6 cGy without setup correction, decreasing to 3.3 cGy with setup correction. If scaled to 15 fractions, all differences between predicted and estimated mean heart doses were <0.5 Gy and in 80% of cases, they were <0.25 Gy. Variation in mean heart dose was at an acceptable level over the duration of breath-holding radiotherapy and was well predicted by the planning system. Advances in knowledge: Mean heart dose was not adversely affected by fraction-to-fraction variations throughout a course of heart-sparing radiotherapy using two well-established breath-holding methods.

To determine if subsets of patients may benefit from smaller or larger margins when using laser setup and bony anatomy verification of breast tumour bed (TB) boost radiotherapy (RT). Verification imaging data acquired using cone-beam CT, megavoltage CT or two-dimensional kilovoltage imaging on 218 patients were used (1574 images). TB setup errors for laser-only setup (d_laser) and for bony anatomy verification (d_bone) were determined using clips implanted into the TB as a gold standard for the TB position. Cases were grouped by centre-, patient- and treatment-related factors, including breast volume, TB position, seroma visibility and surgical technique. Systematic (Σ) and random (σ) TB setup errors were compared between groups, and TB planning target volume margins (M_TB) were calculated. For the study population, Σ_laser was between 2.8 and 3.4 mm, and Σ_bone was between 2.2 and 2.6 mm, respectively. Females with larger breasts (p = 0.03), easily visible seroma (p ≤ 0.02) and open surgical technique (p ≤ 0.04) had larger Σ_laser. Σ_bone was larger for females with larger breasts (p = 0.02) and lateral tumours (p = 0.04). Females with medial tumours (p < 0.01) had smaller Σ_bone. If clips are not used, margins should be 8 and 10 mm for bony anatomy verification and laser setup, respectively. Individualization of TB margins may be considered based on breast volume, TB and seroma visibility. Setup accuracy using lasers and bony anatomy is influenced by patient and treatment factors. Some patients may benefit from clip-based image guidance more than others.

To evaluate breath-hold stability and constancy for a voluntary breath-hold (VBH) technique in a retrospective analysis. Movie loop sequences of electronic portal image data from multiple breath holds in a cohort of 19 patients were used to assess within and between breath-hold stability. In vivo dosimetry data based on electronic portal imaging (EPI) were analysed for 31 VBH patients plus a cohort of free-breathing (FB) patients to provide a reference. A phantom experiment simulated the impact on dose of FB, breath hold and unplanned release of breath hold. 165/174 (93%) movie loop data sets had no detectable displacement. For the remaining 12, median displacement = 1.5 mm and maximum displacement = 3 mm (one patient on one fraction). In vivo dosimetry data analysis showed a median dose difference measured to planned of −0.2% (VBH) and −0.1% (FB). Dose distribution evaluation (γ) pass rates were 84% (VBH) and 91% (FB) including the lung region; 93% and 96% with a lung override. Unplanned release of phantom breath-hold position changed median dose by ≤1% and degraded γ pass rates to 79–62%. Failing regions were mostly in the periphery of the treated volume. The data confirmed that multiple VBHs using visual monitoring are stable; in vivo dose verification via EPI was within expected and acceptable levels. These data provide further reassurance that VBH is a safe technique for cardiac sparing breast radiotherapy and support its rapid, widespread implementation.

Breath-holding techniques reduce the amount of radiation received by cardiac structures during tangential-field left breast radiotherapy. With these techniques, patients hold their breath while radiotherapy is delivered, pushing the heart down and away from the radiotherapy field. Despite clear dosimetric benefits, these techniques are not yet in widespread use. One reason for this is that commercially available solutions require specialist equipment, necessitating not only significant capital investment, but often also incurring ongoing costs such as a need for daily disposable mouthpieces. The voluntary breath-hold technique described here does not require any additional specialist equipment. All breath-holding techniques require a surrogate to monitor breath-hold consistency and whether breath-hold is maintained. Voluntary breath-hold uses the distance moved by the anterior and lateral reference marks (tattoos) away from the treatment room lasers in breath-hold to monitor consistency at CT-planning and treatment setup. Light fields are then used to monitor breath-hold consistency prior to and during radiotherapy delivery.