Chris Brew-Graves

Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial

BACKGROUND The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. METHODS TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12-52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1-5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7-2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1-4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5-2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0-9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6-4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5-4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1-3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8-2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3-5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7-5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9-7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). INTERPRETATION TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. 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.

Long-Term Results of Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy (Targit) Boost During Breast-Conserving Surgery

PURPOSE We have previously shown that delivering targeted radiotherapy to the tumour bed intraoperatively is feasible and desirable. In this study, we report on the feasibility, safety, and long-term efficacy of TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (Targit), using the Intrabeam system. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 300 cancers in 299 unselected patients underwent breast-conserving surgery and Targit as a boost to the tumor bed. After lumpectomy, a single dose of 20 Gy was delivered intraoperatively. Postoperative external beam whole-breast radiotherapy excluded the usual boost. We also performed a novel individualized case control (ICC) analysis that computed the expected recurrences for the cohort by estimating the risk of recurrence for each patient using their characteristics and follow-up period. RESULTS The treatment was well tolerated. The median follow up was 60.5 months (range, 10-122 months). Eight patients have had ipsilateral recurrence: 5-year Kaplan Meier estimate for ipsilateral recurrence is 1.73% (SE 0.77), which compares well with that seen in the boosted patients in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer study (4.3%) and the UK STAndardisation of breast RadioTherapy study (2.8%). In a novel ICC analysis of 242 of the patients, we estimated that there should be 11.4 recurrences; in this group, only 6 recurrences were observed. CONCLUSIONS Lumpectomy and Targit boost combined with external beam radiotherapy results in a low local recurrence rate in a standard risk patient population. Accurate localization and the immediacy of the treatment that has a favorable effect on tumour microenvironment may contribute to this effect. These long-term data establish the long-term safety and efficacy of the Targit technique and generate the hypothesis that Targit boost might be superior to an external beam boost in its efficacy and justifies a randomized trial.

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis

Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy for prostate‐cancer detection in men with a raised prostate‐specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy. Men in the MRI‐targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10‐to‐12–core, transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Results A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI‐targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI‐targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard‐biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI‐targeted biopsy group than in the standard‐biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, ‐13 percentage points; 95% CI, ‐19 to ‐7; P<0.001). Conclusions The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI‐targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027.)

In Vivo Dosimetry for Single-Fraction Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy (TARGIT) for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE In vivo dosimetry provides an independent check of delivered dose and gives confidence in the introduction or consistency of radiotherapy techniques. Single-fraction intraoperative radiotherapy of the breast can be performed with the Intrabeam compact, mobile 50 kV x-ray source (Carl Zeiss Surgical, Oberkochen, Germany). Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) can be used to estimate skin doses during these treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS Measurements of skin doses were taken using TLDs for 72 patients over 3 years of clinical treatments. Phantom studies were also undertaken to assess the uncertainties resulting from changes in beam quality and backscatter conditions in vivo. RESULTS The mean measured skin dose was 2.9 ± 1.6 Gy, with 11% of readings higher than the prescription dose of 6 Gy, but none of these patients showed increased complications. Uncertainties due to beam hardening and backscatter reduction were small compared with overall accuracy. CONCLUSIONS TLDs are a useful and effective method to measure in vivo skin doses in intraoperative radiotherapy and are recommended for the initial validation or any modification to the delivery of this technique. They are also an effective tool to show consistent and safe delivery on a more frequent basis or to determine doses to other critical structures as required.

Who Should Be Investigated for Haematuria? Results of a Contemporary Prospective Observational Study of 3556 Patients

There remains a lack of consensus among guideline relating to which patients require investigation for haematuria. We determined the incidence of urinary tract cancer in a prospective observational study of 3556 patients referred for investigation of haematuria across 40 hospitals between March 2016 and June 2017 (DETECT 1; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02676180) and the appropriateness of age at presentation in cases with visible (VH) and nonvisible (NVH) haematuria. The overall incidence of urinary tract cancer was 10.0% (bladder cancer 8.0%, renal parenchymal cancer 1.0%, upper tract transitional cell carcinoma 0.7%, and prostate cancer 0.3%). Patients with VH were more likely to have a diagnosis of urinary tract cancer compared with NVH patients (13.8% vs 3.1%). Older patients, male gender, and smoking history were independently associated with urinary tract cancer diagnosis. Of bladder cancers diagnosed following NVH, 59.4% were high-risk cancers, with 31.3% being muscle invasive. The incidence of cancer in VH patients <45 yr of age was 3.5% (n=7) and 1.0% (n=4) in NVH patients <60 yr old. Our results suggest that patients with VH should be investigated regardless of age. Although the risk of urinary tract cancer in NVH patients is low, clinically significant cancers are detected below the age threshold for referral for investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY This study highlights the requirement to investigate all patients with visible blood in the urine and an age threshold of ≥60 yr, as recommended in some guidelines, as the investigation of nonvisible blood in the urine will miss a significant number of urinary tract cancers. Patient preference is important, and evidence that patients are willing to submit to investigation should be considered in reaching a consensus recommendation for the investigation of haematuria. International consensus to guide that patients will benefit from investigation should be developed.

MP33-20 THE SMARTTARGET BIOPSY TRIAL: A PROSPECTIVE PAIRED BLINDED TRIAL WITH RANDOMISATION TO COMPARE VISUAL-ESTIMATION AND IMAGE-FUSION TARGETED PROSTATE BIOPSIES

Multi-parametric MRI targeted prostate biopsies can improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and decrease the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancers. There is debate whether visual estimated targeting is sufficient or whether image-fusion software is required. We conducted an ethics committee approved, prospective, blinded, paired validating clinical trial of visual estimated targeted biopsies compared to non-rigid MR/US image-fusion using an academically developed fusion system (SmartTarget®).

Health economics of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) for early breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United Kingdom

Objective The clinical effectiveness of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) has been confirmed in the randomised TARGIT-A (targeted intraoperative radiotherapy-alone) trial to be similar to a several weeks’ course of whole-breast external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in patients with early breast cancer. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of TARGIT-IORT to inform policy decisions about its wider implementation. Setting TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial (ISRCTN34086741) which compared TARGIT with traditional EBRT and found similar breast cancer control, particularly when TARGIT was given simultaneously with lumpectomy. Methods Cost-utility analysis using decision analytic modelling by a Markov model. A cost-effectiveness Markov model was developed using TreeAge Pro V.2015. The decision analytic model compared two strategies of radiotherapy for breast cancer in a hypothetical cohort of patients with early breast cancer based on the published health state transition probability data from the TARGIT-A trial. Analysis was performed for UK setting and National Health Service (NHS) healthcare payer’s perspective using NHS cost data and treatment outcomes were simulated for both strategies for a time horizon of 10 years. Model health state utilities were drawn from the published literature. Future costs and effects were discounted at the rate of 3.5%. To address uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Main outcome measures Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results In the base case analysis, TARGIT-IORT was a highly cost-effective strategy yielding health gain at a lower cost than its comparator EBRT. Discounted TARGIT-IORT and EBRT costs for the time horizon of 10 years were £12 455 and £13 280, respectively. TARGIT-IORT gained 0.18 incremental QALY as the discounted QALYs gained by TARGIT-IORT were 8.15 and by EBRT were 7.97 showing TARGIT-IORT as a dominant strategy over EBRT. Model outputs were robust to one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions TARGIT-IORT is a dominant strategy over EBRT, being less costly and producing higher QALY gain. Trial registration number ISRCTN34086741; post results

Intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer

Intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) as a treatment for breast cancer is a relatively new technique that is designed to be a replacement for whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in selected women suitable for breast-conserving therapy. This article reviews twelve reasons for the use of the technique, with a particular emphasis on targeted intra-operative radiotherapy (TARGIT) which uses X-rays generated from a portable device within the operating theatre immediately after the breast tumour (and surrounding margin of healthy tissue) has been removed. The delivery of a single fraction of radiotherapy directly to the tumour bed at the time of surgery, with the capability of adding EBRT at a later date if required (risk-adaptive technique) is discussed in light of recent results from a large multinational randomised controlled trial comparing TARGIT with EBRT. The technique avoids irradiation of normal tissues such as skin, heart, lungs, ribs and spine, and has been shown to improve cosmetic outcome when compared with EBRT. Beneficial aspects to both institutional and societal economics are discussed, together with evidence demonstrating excellent patient satisfaction and quality of life. There is a discussion of the published evidence regarding the use of IORT twice in the same breast (for new primary cancers) and in patients who would never be considered for EBRT because of their special circumstances (such as the frail, the elderly, or those with collagen vascular disease). Finally, there is a discussion of the role of the TARGIT Academy in developing and sustaining high standards in the use of the technique.

Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria

Purpose Computerized tomography urogram is recommended when investigating patients with hematuria. We determined the incidence of urinary tract cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy of computerized tomography urogram to that of renal and bladder ultrasound for identifying urinary tract cancer. Materials and Methods The DETECT (Detecting Bladder Cancer Using the UroMark Test) I study is a prospective observational study recruiting patients 18 years old or older following presentation with macroscopic or microscopic hematuria at a total of 40 hospitals. All patients underwent cystoscopy and upper tract imaging comprising computerized tomography urogram and/or renal and bladder ultrasound. Results A total of 3,556 patients with a median age of 68 years were recruited in this study, of whom 2,166 underwent renal and bladder ultrasound, and 1,692 underwent computerized tomography urogram in addition to cystoscopy. The incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer was 11.0%, 1.4% and 0.8%, respectively, in macroscopic hematuria cases. Patients with microscopic hematuria had a 2.7%, 0.4% and 0% incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of renal and bladder ultrasound to detect renal cancer were 85.7% and 99.9% but they were 14.3% and 99.7%, respectively, to detect upper tract urothelial cancer. Renal and bladder ultrasound was poor at identifying renal calculi. Renal and bladder ultrasound sensitivity was lower than that of computerized tomography urogram to detect bladder cancer (each less than 85%). Cystoscopy had 98.3% specificity and 83.9% positive predictive value. Conclusions Computerized tomography urogram can be safely replaced by renal and bladder ultrasound in patients who have microscopic hematuria. The incidence of upper tract urothelial cancer is 0.8% in patients with macroscopic hematuria and computerized tomography urogram is recommended. Patients with suspected renal calculi require noncontrast renal tract computerized tomography. Imaging cannot replace cystoscopy to diagnose bladder cancer.

Does urinary cytology have a role in haematuria investigations

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of urinary cytology to diagnose bladder cancer and upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) as well as the outcome of patients with a positive urine cytology and normal haematuria investigations in patients in a multicentre prospective observational study of patients investigated for haematuria.