Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Oncotype DX testing has reduced the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in node‐negative early breast cancer but less is known about its impact in node positive patients. Aim This study aimed to investigate the impact of Oncotype DX gene assay testing on the decision to offer adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, 1–3 lymph node positive patients. Methods Retrospective review of all node positive patients who underwent Oncotype DX testing at a single centre. Clinicopathological data, as well as estimated survival benefit data (from the PREDICT tool), was evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of surgeons and oncologists. Treatment decisions based on clinicopathological data were compared to recurrence scores (RS). A cut off RS > 30 was used to offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Results The 69 patients were identified, of which 9 (13%) had an RS > 30 and assigned a high‐genomic risk of recurrence. The 32 patients (46.4%) were offered adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall based on the use of the RS, the decision to offer adjuvant chemotherapy changed in 36% of patients, and ultimately 24 patients (34.7%) would have been spared chemotherapy. Conclusion Using clinicopathological data alone to make decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in node positive breast cancer leads to overtreatment. Additional information on tumour biology as assessed by the Oncotype DX RS helps to select those patients who will benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and spare patients from unnecessary chemotherapy.

The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m2). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3–5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3–5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4·8 [95% CI 4·2–5·4] with cisplatin vs 4·8 [4·2–5·4] with cetuximab; p=0·98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29·2 [95% CI 27·3–31·0] with cisplatin vs 30·1 [28·3–31·9] with cetuximab; p=0·49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97·5% vs 89·4%, hazard ratio 5·0 [95% CI 1·7–14·7]; p=0·001) and 2-year recurrence (6·0% vs 16·1%, 3·4 [1·6–7·2]; p=0·0007). Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. Cancer Research UK.

The role of postmastectomy chest-wall irradiation in patients with breast cancer classified as pN1 (with involvement of one to three axillary nodes) or pN0 (pathologically node negative) with additional risk factors is uncertain. In this international, phase 3, randomized trial, we evaluated the omission of chest-wall irradiation in women with \"intermediate-risk\" breast cancer - defined as cancer that was stage pT1N1, pT2N1, or pT3N0 or stage pT2N0 with a histologic grade of 3, lymphovascular invasion, or both (tumor size: T1, ≤2 cm; T2, >2 cm to 5 cm; or T3, >5 cm) - that was treated with mastectomy, an axillary procedure, and systemic therapy. Patients were assigned to undergo chest-wall irradiation (40 to 50 Gy; the irradiation group) or not to undergo chest-wall irradiation (the no-irradiation group). The primary end point was overall survival, with 10 years of follow-up. Chest-wall recurrence, regional recurrence, disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, causes of death, and radiation-related adverse events were also assessed. The intention-to-treat population included 808 patients in the irradiation group and 799 in the no-irradiation group. The median follow up was 9.6 years. Overall survival was 81.4% with chest-wall irradiation and 81.9% with no chest-wall irradiation according to 10-year Kaplan-Meier estimates (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.30; P = 0.80). A total of 29 patients had a chest-wall recurrence - 9 (1.1%) in the irradiation group and 20 (2.5%) in the no-irradiation group (between-group difference, <2 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.99). Disease-free survival was 76.2% in the irradiation group and 75.5% in the no-irradiation group (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.18), and distant metastasis-free survival was 78.2% and 79.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.31). In this trial, chest-wall irradiation did not result in higher overall survival than no chest-wall irradiation among patients with intermediate-risk, early breast cancer treated with mastectomy and contemporary adjuvant systemic therapy. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and others; SUPREMO ISRCTN Clinical Study Registry number, 61145589.).

Background Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [ n  = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [ n  = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [ n  = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients.

Postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients with four or more positive axillary nodes reduces breast cancer mortality, but its role in patients with one to three involved nodes is controversial. We assessed the effects of postmastectomy radiotherapy on quality of life (QOL) in women with intermediate-risk breast cancer. SUPREMO is an open-label, international, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial. Women aged 18 years or older with intermediate-risk breast cancer (defined as pT1–2N1; pT3N0; or pT2N0 if also grade III or with lymphovascular invasion) who had undergone mastectomy and, if node positive, axillary surgery, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chest wall radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions or a radiobiologically equivalent dose of 45 Gy in 20 fractions or 40 Gy in 15 fractions) or no radiotherapy. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks of varying block length, and stratified by centre, without masking of patients or investigators. The primary endpoint is 10-year overall survival. Here, we present 2-year results of QOL (a prespecified secondary endpoint). The QOL substudy, open to all UK patients, consists of questionnaires (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23, Body Image Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], and EQ-5D-3L) completed before randomisation, and at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years. The prespecified primary outcomes within this QOL substudy were global QOL, fatigue, physical function, chest wall symptoms, shoulder and arm symptoms, body image, and anxiety and depression. Data were analysed by intention to treat, using repeated mixed-effects methods. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN61145589. Between Aug 4, 2006, and April 29, 2013, 1688 patients were enrolled internationally and randomly assigned to receive chest wall radiotherapy (n=853) or not (n=835). 989 (79%) of 1258 patients from 111 UK centres consented to participate in the QOL substudy (487 in the radiotherapy group and 502 in the no radiotherapy group), of whom 947 (96%) returned the baseline questionnaires and were included in the analysis (radiotherapy, n=471; no radiotherapy, n=476). At up to 2 years, chest wall symptoms were worse in the radiotherapy group than in the no radiotherapy group (mean score 14·1 [SD 15·8] in the radiotherapy group vs 11·6 [14·6] in the no radiotherapy group; effect estimate 2·17, 95% CI 0·40–3·94; p=0·016); however, there was an improvement in both groups between years 1 and 2 (visit effect −1·34, 95% CI −2·36 to −0·31; p=0·010). No differences were seen between treatment groups in arm and shoulder symptoms, body image, fatigue, overall QOL, physical function, or anxiety or depression scores. Postmastectomy radiotherapy led to more local (chest wall) symptoms up to 2 years postrandomisation compared with no radiotherapy, but the difference between groups was small. These data will inform shared decision making while we await survival (trial primary endpoint) results. Medical Research Council, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Cancer Australia, Dutch Cancer Society, Trustees of Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.