This work was produced by Brunt et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Abstract
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.
Plain language summary
Patients diagnosed with early breast cancer are often recommended to have radiotherapy after surgery because research has shown that it lowers the risk of the cancer returning. However, it may cause some short- and long-term side effects. Previous clinical trials showed that the same, or even better, outcomes with a lower total dose of radiotherapy given in fewer, larger daily doses compared with older historical treatment schedules. The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded FAST-Forward Trial aimed to see whether the number of doses could be reduced further without reducing the beneficial effects of radiotherapy.
Between November 2011 and June 2014, 4096 patients agreed to take part in the FAST-Forward Main Trial testing three schedules of radiotherapy to the breast. Standard treatment given on 15 days over 3 weeks (Control Group) was compared with two different lower dose schedules where treatment was given on 5 days over 1 week (lower dose Test Groups). An additional 469 patients entered a sub-study where the gland area under the arm also received radiotherapy (Nodal Sub-Study).
Main Trial 5-year results reported in April 2020 showed that the number of patients whose cancer had returned in the treated breast was low in all groups: around 2 in 100 (2.1%) for the Control Group, and 1.7% in the higher dose and 1.4% in the lower dose Test Groups. The majority of reported side effects assessed by patients and doctors up to 5 years after radiotherapy were mild for all treatment groups. Patients in the Control Group and in the lower dose Test Group experienced similar levels of side effects. More side effects were reported in the higher dose Test Group, although differences were small.
Overall, the FAST-Forward findings suggest that the lower dose 1-week schedule gave similar results in terms of the cancer returning and side effects to the standard 3-week treatment and this schedule can now be used to help treat future patients.
Contents
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Methods
- Chapter 3. Radiotherapy quality assurance
- Chapter 4. Acute toxicity sub-studies
- Chapter 5. Main Trial
- Recruitment
- Deviations and withdrawals
- Data returns
- Baseline data
- Follow-up
- Five-year cancer outcomes in the Main Trial
- Late normal tissue effects up to 5 years’ follow-up in the Main Trial
- Severe late adverse effects and specialist referrals for radiotherapy-related adverse effects in the Main Trial
- Estimation of radiobiology parameters for late adverse effects
- Five-year subgroup analyses in the Main Trial
- Chapter 6. Main Trial cost-effectiveness analysis
- Chapter 7. Nodal Sub-Study
- Chapter 8. Discussion
- Opening statements
- FAST-Forward local relapse
- Application of FAST-Forward to partial breast radiotherapy
- Use of hypofractionation in the post-mastectomy setting
- Breast cancer subgroups and local relapse
- Disease-free survival and overall survival
- Normal tissue effects
- Tumour control and radiobiology
- Normal tissue effects and radiobiology
- Resource implications
- COVID-19
- Breast consensus/guidelines and moving forward
- Global health
- Other trials and areas of future research and collaboration
- Limitations of the trial
- Future plans
- Research recommendations
- Equality, diversity and inclusion for study participants
- Patient and public involvement
- Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Centre recruitment to Main Trial and Nodal Sub-Study
- Appendix 2. Additional tables
- Appendix 3. Additional figures
- List of abbreviations
About the Series
Full disclosure of interests: Completed ICMJE forms for all authors, including all related interests, are available in the toolkit on the NIHR Journals Library report publication page at https://doi
Primary conflicts of interest: Joanne Haviland reports grant funding from NIHR HTA (London, UK) and is a member of the HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials Committee (2019–23). Duncan Wheatley reports personal fees from Roche (Basel, Switzerland) and Daiichi Sankyo (Tokyo, Japan) and travel support from Roche (Basel, Switzerland). Mark Sydenham reports grant funding from NIHR HTA (London, UK). David Bloomfield reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca (Cambridge, UK). Charlotte Coles reports a NIHR Research Professorship and is a member of HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials Committee (2017–23). Ellen Donovan reports grant funding from NIHR-HTA (London, UK). David Glynn reports grant funding from NIHR-HTA (London, UK) and from Cancer Research UK (London, UK). Susan Griffin reports grant funding from NIHR-HTA (London, UK) and is a member of PHR Research Funding Board (2022–26). Anna Kirby reports grant funding from Cancer Research UK (London, UK) and is President of the European Society of Radiation Oncology. Zohal Nabi reports grant funding from NIHR-HTA (London, UK). Jaymini Patel reports grant funding from NIHR-HTA (London, UK). Isabel Syndikus reports personal fees from Bayer (Leverkusen, Germany), Pfizer (Sandwich, UK), Astellas (Tokyo, Japan), Janssen (High Wycombe, UK) and travel support from Bayer (Leverkusen, Germany), Roche (Basel, Switzerland). She is a member of the Data Monitoring and Safety Committee for Bristol Myers Squibb (New York City, USA). Karen Venables reports grant funding from NIHR (London, UK) and is a member of the RTTQA management group. Judith Bliss reports grants from NIHR-HTA (London, UK), Astra Zeneca (Cambridge, UK), Merck Sharp Dohme (New Jersey, USA), Puma Biotechnology (Los Angeles, USA), Clovis Oncology (Boulder, USA), Pfizer (Sandwich, UK), Janssen-Cilag (High Wycombe, UK), Novartis (Basel, Switzerland), Roche (Basel, Switzerland), Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, USA) and an AACR Scientific Achievement Award and Honorarium 2022. She is a NIHR Senior Researcher and is a member of the HTA Commissions Committee (2011–16).
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 09/01/47. The contractual start date was in September 2011. The draft report began editorial review in June 2022 and was accepted for publication in October 2022. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Last reviewed: June 2022; Accepted: October 2022.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early brea...One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT
- The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief intervention for exce...The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief intervention for excessive alcohol consumption among people attending sexual health clinics: a randomised controlled trial (SHEAR)
- The future for diagnostic tests of acute kidney injury in critical care: evidenc...The future for diagnostic tests of acute kidney injury in critical care: evidence synthesis, care pathway analysis and research prioritisation
- Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson’s disease: a s...Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
- Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening ...Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...