Explore the vast range of titles available.

We aimed to identify a five-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week that is non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and is as safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Here, we present 5-year results of the FAST-Forward trial. FAST-Forward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referring hospitals) in the UK. Patients aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1–3, pN0–1, M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy were eligible. We randomly allocated patients to either 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks), 27 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week), or 26 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week) to the whole breast or chest wall. Allocation was not masked because of the nature of the intervention. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as ≤1·6% excess for five-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio [HR] of 1·81). Normal tissue effects were assessed by clinicians, patients, and from photographs. This trial is registered at isrctn.com, ISRCTN19906132. Between Nov 24, 2011, and June 19, 2014, we recruited and obtained consent from 4096 patients from 97 UK centres, of whom 1361 were assigned to the 40 Gy schedule, 1367 to the 27 Gy schedule, and 1368 to the 26 Gy schedule. At a median follow-up of 71·5 months (IQR 71·3 to 71·7), the primary endpoint event occurred in 79 patients (31 in the 40 Gy group, 27 in the 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0·86 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·44) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 0·67 (0·38 to 1·16) for 26 Gy in five fractions. 5-year incidence of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy was 2·1% (1·4 to 3·1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were −0·3% (−1·0 to 0·9) for 27 Gy in five fractions (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule: p=0·0022 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions) and −0·7% (−1·3 to 0·3) for 26 Gy in five fractions (p=0·00019 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions). At 5 years, any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was reported for 98 of 986 (9·9%) 40 Gy patients, 155 (15·4%) of 1005 27 Gy patients, and 121 of 1020 (11·9%) 26 Gy patients. Across all clinician assessments from 1–5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 1·55 (95% CI 1·32 to 1·83, p<0·0001) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 1·12 (0·94 to 1·34, p=0·20) for 26 Gy in five fractions. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effect risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy. 26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week is non-inferior to the standard of 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for local tumour control, and is as safe in terms of normal tissue effects up to 5 years for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane. Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

The IMPORT LOW trial evaluated partial-breast radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in women with early-stage breast cancer at below average risk of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR). 5-year results concluded non-inferiority of IBTR for reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, with similar or lower frequency of adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. We report outcomes after 10 years. IMPORT LOW was a randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Women were eligible if they were aged 50 years or older and had had breast conservation surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma, pT1–2 (tumour size of ≤3 cm), N0–1 (none to three positive axillary nodes), grades 1–3, with microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more. Patients were ineligible if they had a previous malignancy of any kind (except non-melanomatous skin cancer), had undergone mastectomy, or had received neoadjuvant or concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by randomly permuted blocks to radiotherapy regimens of 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast (whole-breast group), 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast plus 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast (partial-breast group). Participants were stratified by treatment centre, without masking. The primary endpoint was IBTR. 10-year outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Clinician-reported late adverse effects were evaluated in all participants with available data analysed according to allocated treatment. The study is registered in the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12852634) and is now complete. 2018 patients were recruited between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, from 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK and randomly assigned to the whole-breast group (n=675), reduced-dose group (n=674), or partial-breast group (n=669). Two participants subsequently withdrew consent. Median age was 63 years (IQR 58–68). 854 (42%) of 2016 patients had grade 1 tumours, 959 (48%) had grade 2 tumours, and 200 (10%) had grade 3 tumours (three tumours were ungradable); 59 (3%) had node-positive disease. Median follow-up was 120 months (IQR 119–122) for the whole-breast group, 121 months (IQR 120–122) for the reduced-dose group, and 120 months (IQR 119–122) for the partial-breast group. By 10 years, IBTR events were reported for 45 of 2016 participants: 17 of 674 in the whole-breast group, 11 of 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 17 of 669 in the partial-breast group, with cumulative incidence of 2·8% (95% CI 1·8–4·5), 1·9% (1·1–3·5), and 3·0% (1·9–4·8), respectively. The estimated absolute difference in 10-year IBTR incidence was –1·02% (95% CI –1·98 to 0·99) for the reduced-dose group and 0·16% (–1·28 to 2·89) for the partial-breast group compared with the whole-breast group. Similar low levels of moderate or marked adverse effects were recorded for participants in all three groups in 10-year clinical assessments. Breast shrinkage had the highest incidence (30 [9%] of 321 in the whole-breast group, 28 [9%] of 322 in the reduced-dose group, and 22 [7%] of 333 in the partial-breast group). Long-term follow-up provides further evidence that partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy are as safe and effective as whole-breast radiotherapy in patients with low-risk early breast cancer. These results reaffirm the use of partial-breast radiotherapy delivered with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in this population as standard of care. Cancer Research UK.

Bisphosphonates are routinely used in the treatment of metastatic bone disease from breast cancer to reduce pain and bone destruction. Zoledronic acid given by intravenous infusion has been widely used, but places a substantial logistical burden on both patient and hospital. As a result, the use of oral ibandronic acid has increased, despite the absence of comparative data. In the ZICE trial, we compared oral ibandronic acid with intravenous zoledronic acid for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer to bone. This phase 3, open-label, parallel group active-controlled, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 study was done in 99 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included at least one radiologically confirmed bone metastasis from a histologically confirmed breast cancer. Patients with ECOG performance status 0 to 2 and clinical decision to treat with bisphosphonates within 3 months of randomisation were randomly assigned to receive 96 weeks of treatment with either intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg every 3–4 weeks or oral ibandronic acid 50 mg daily. Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system within stratified block sizes of four. Randomisation was stratified on whether patients had current or planned treatment with chemotherapy; current or planned treatment with hormone therapy; and whether they had a previous skeletal-related event within the last 3 months or had planned radiotherapy treatment to the bone or planned orthopaedic surgery due to bone metastases. The primary non-inferiority endpoint was the frequency and timing of skeletal-related events over 96 weeks, analysed using a per-protocol analysis. All active (non-withdrawn) patients have now reached the 96-week timepoint and the trial is now in long-term follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326820. Between Jan 13, 2006, and Oct 4, 2010, 705 patients were randomly assigned to receive ibandronic acid and 699 to receive zoledronic acid; three patients withdrew immediately after randomisation. The per-protocol analysis included 654 patients in the ibandronic acid group and 672 in the zoledronic acid group. Annual rates of skeletal-related events were 0·499 (95% CI 0·454–0·549) with ibandronic acid and 0·435 (0·393–0·480) with zoledronic acid; the rate ratio for skeletal-related events was 1·148 (95% CI 0·967–1·362). The upper CI was greater than the margin of non-inferiority of 1·08; therefore, we could not reject the null hypothesis that ibandronic acid was inferior to zoledronic acid. More patients in the zoledronic acid group had renal toxic effects than in the ibandronic acid group (226 [32%] of 697 vs 172 [24%] of 704) but rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw were low in both groups (nine [1%] of 697 vs five [<1%] of 704). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (97 [14%] of 697 patients allocated zoledronic acid vs 98 [14%] of 704 allocated ibandronic acid), increased bone pain (92 [13%] vs 86 [12%]), joint pain (42 [6%] vs 38 [5%]), infection (33 [5%] vs 24 [3%]), and nausea or vomiting (38 [5%] vs 41 [6%]). Our results suggest that zoledronic acid is preferable to ibandronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events caused by bone metastases. However, both drugs have acceptable side-effect profiles and the oral formulation is more convenient, and could still be considered if the patient has a strong preference or if difficulties occur with intravenous infusions. Roche Products Ltd (educational grant), supported by National Institute for Health Research Cancer Network, following endorsement by Cancer Research UK (CRUKE/04/022).

Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed durable antitumour activity and manageable safety in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. We aimed to examine whether the addition of pembrolizumab would enhance the antitumour activity of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine–carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing. Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo–chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8–29·9) in the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7–29·7) in the placebo–chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab–chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo–chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49–0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61–0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69–0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo–chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo–chemotherapy group. Pembrolizumab–chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo–chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

CLEOPATRA was a phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. In the primary analysis and subsequent reports, progression-free and overall survival were significantly improved in the pertuzumab group compared with the placebo group. Here, we report the end-of-study analysis of CLEOPATRA. This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that was done at 204 centres in 25 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer, had not received previous chemotherapy or biological treatment for their metastatic disease, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. All study drugs were given intravenously, every 3 weeks. Patients were assigned to receive either pertuzumab or placebo at a loading dose of 840 mg, and 420 mg thereafter; plus trastuzumab at 8 mg/kg loading dose and 6 mg/kg thereafter; and docetaxel at 75 mg/m2, escalating to 100 mg/m2 if tolerated. Pertuzumab or placebo and trastuzumab were given until disease progression; docetaxel was given for six cycles, or longer at the investigators’ discretion. Randomisation (1:1) was done by use of an interactive voice-response system and was stratified by geographical region (Asia, Europe, North America, or South America) and previous treatment (previous adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs none). The primary endpoint was independent review facility-assessed progression-free survival, which has been reported previously. Since the confirmatory overall survival analysis had also occurred before this prespecified end-of-study analysis, analyses presented here are descriptive. Overall survival analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population with crossover patients analysed in the placebo group; analyses were not adjusted for crossover to the pertuzumab group and are likely to be conservative. Safety analyses were based on treatment received; crossover patients were counted in the placebo group up to the day before first pertuzumab dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00567190. Between Feb 12, 2008, and July 7, 2010, 1196 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 808 were enrolled and randomly assigned. 402 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, and 406 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus placebo. Clinical cutoff for this analysis was Nov 23, 2018. Between July 2012 and clinical cutoff, 50 patients crossed from the placebo to the pertuzumab group. Median follow-up was 99·9 months in the pertuzumab group (IQR 92·9–106·4) and 98·7 months (90·9–105·7) in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 57·1 months (95% CI 50–72) in the pertuzumab group and 40·8 months (36–48) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·58–0·82); 8-year landmark overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI 31–42) in the pertuzumab group and 23% (19–28) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was neutropenia (200 [49%] of 408 patients in the pertuzumab group, 183 [46%] of 396 patients in the placebo group). Five (1%) of 408 patients in the pertuzumab group and six (2%) of 396 patients in the placebo group had treatment-related deaths. One new serious adverse event suggestive of congestive heart failure (pertuzumab group) and one new symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (post-crossover) occurred since the previous analysis. Our analysis shows that the previously observed improvements in overall survival with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel versus placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel were maintained after a median of more than 8 years of follow-up. The long-term safety and cardiac safety profiles of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel were maintained in the overall safety population and within crossover patients. HER2-targeted therapy has changed the natural history of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, with the dual blockade of pertuzumab and trastuzumab, with docetaxel, demonstrating an 8-year landmark overall survival rate of 37%. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Local cancer relapse risk after breast conservation surgery followed by radiotherapy has fallen sharply in many countries, and is influenced by patient age and clinicopathological factors. We hypothesise that partial-breast radiotherapy restricted to the vicinity of the original tumour in women at lower than average risk of local relapse will improve the balance of beneficial versus adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. IMPORT LOW is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK. Women aged 50 years or older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of grade 1–3, with a tumour size of 3 cm or less (pT1–2), none to three positive axillary nodes (pN0–1), and minimum microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more, were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 40 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy (control), 36 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy and 40 Gy to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy to the partial breast only (partial-breast group) in 15 daily treatment fractions. Computer-generated random permuted blocks (mixed sizes of six and nine) were used to assign patients to groups, stratifying patients by radiotherapy treatment centre. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. Field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered using standard tangential beams that were simply reduced in length for the partial-breast group. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral local relapse (80% power to exclude a 2·5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the local relapse hazard ratio [HR] was less than 2·03), analysed by intention to treat. Safety analyses were done in all patients for whom data was available (ie, a modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN12852634. Between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, 2018 women were recruited. Two women withdrew consent for use of their data in the analysis. 674 patients were analysed in the whole-breast radiotherapy (control) group, 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 669 in the partial-breast group. Median follow-up was 72·2 months (IQR 61·7–83·2), and 5-year estimates of local relapse cumulative incidence were 1·1% (95% CI 0·5–2·3) of patients in the control group, 0·2% (0·02–1·2) in the reduced-dose group, and 0·5% (0·2–1·4) in the partial-breast group. Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the control group were −0·73% (−0·99 to 0·22) for the reduced-dose and −0·38% (−0·84 to 0·90) for the partial-breast groups. Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, and was confirmed by the test against the critical HR being more than 2·03 (p=0·003 for the reduced-dose group and p=0·016 for the partial-breast group, compared with the whole-breast radiotherapy group). Photographic, patient, and clinical assessments recorded similar adverse effects after reduced-dose or partial-breast radiotherapy, including two patient domains achieving statistically significantly lower adverse effects (change in breast appearance [p=0·007 for partial-breast] and breast harder or firmer [p=0·002 for reduced-dose and p<0·0001 for partial-breast]) compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy compared with the standard whole-breast radiotherapy in terms of local relapse in a cohort of patients with early breast cancer, and equivalent or fewer late normal-tissue adverse effects were seen. This simple radiotherapy technique is implementable in radiotherapy centres worldwide. Cancer Research UK.

BackgroundThe Ibrance® Patient Program was established to provide access to palbociclib for UK National Health Service (NHS) patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), pending a funding decision.MethodsNon-interventional cohort study involving a retrospective medical record review of patients commenced on palbociclib between April and December 2017 at eight UK centres. Primary outcomes included clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and selected adverse events.ResultsOverall, 191 patients were identified, median age of 57.0 years (range 24.3–90.9); 30% were diagnosed with de novo MBC; 72% received first-line and 10% as ≥ second-line treatment. Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 22.8 months (16.5–not reached [NR]) in first-line; NR in patients with de novo MBC; 7.8 months (6.8–NR) in ≥ second-line (median follow-up: 24 months). Median overall survival (OS) was NR in the overall cohort; OS rate (95% CI) at 24 months was 74.2% (67.1–81.9%) in first-line; 82.1% (72.6–92.8%) in patients with de novo MBC; 55.0% (37.0–81.8%) in ≥ second-line. Forty-seven per cent of patients developed grade 3–4 neutropenia; 3% febrile neutropenia.ConclusionThis study supports the effectiveness of palbociclib and demonstrates the benefit to patients of early access schemes that bridge the gap between regulatory approval and NHS funding for new medicines.Clinical trial registrationClinical trial: ClinicalTrial.gov:NCT03921866.

PurposeWe estimated the cost-effectiveness of 4 radiotherapy modalities to treat early breast cancer in the UK. In a subgroup of patients eligible for all modalities, we compared whole-breast (WB) and partial breast (PB) radiotherapy delivered in either 15 (WB15F, PB15F) or 5 fractions (WB5F, PB5F). In a subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy, we compared WB15F to WB5F.MethodsWe developed a Markov cohort model to simulate lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each modality. This was informed by the clinical analysis of two non-inferiority trials (FAST Forward and IMPORT LOW) and supplemented with external literature. The primary analysis assumed that radiotherapy modality influences health only through its impact on locoregional recurrence and radiotherapy-related adverse events.ResultsIn the primary analysis, PB5F had the least cost and greatest expected QALYs. WB5F had the least cost and the greatest expected QALYs in those only eligible for WB radiotherapy. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15,000/QALY, there was a 62% chance that PB5F was the cost-effective alternative in the PB eligible group, and there was a 100% chance that WB5F was cost-effective in the subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy.ConclusionsHypofractionation to 5 fractions and partial breast radiotherapy modalities offer potentially important benefits to the UK health system.