An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

Background: Based on our laboratory work and clinical trials we hypothesised that radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer could be restricted to the tumour bed. In collaboration with the industry we developed a new radiotherapy device and a new surgical operation for delivering single-dose radiation to the tumour bed – the tissues at highest risk of local recurrence. We named it TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT). From 1998 we confirmed its feasibility and safety in pilot studies. Objective: To compare TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) over several weeks. Design: The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. Originally, randomisation occurred before initial lumpectomy (prepathology) and, if allocated TARGIT, the patient received it during the lumpectomy. Subsequently, the postpathology stratum was added in which randomisation occurred after initial lumpectomy, allowing potentially easier logistics and a more stringent case selection, but which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world. Setting: Thirty-three centres in 11 countries. Participants: Women who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size. Interventions: TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality. Results: In total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan–Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%; p = 0.04; Pnon-inferiority = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%; p = 0.31; Pnon-inferiority = 0.0000000013). With delayed TARGIT postpathology (n = 1153), the between-group difference was larger than 2.5% and non-inferiority was not established for this stratum (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%; p = 0.069; Pnon-inferiority = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.9%; p = 0.77). Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%; p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.2%; p = 0.0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%; p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of \u3e 90% of being cost-effective. There appears to be little uncertainty in the point estimates, based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. If TARGIT were given instead of EBRT in suitable patients, it might potentially reduce costs to the health-care providers in the UK by £8–9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs. Limitations: The number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (\u3c 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for \u3e 5 years. Conclusions: For patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT. Future work: The analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684. Funding: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): study protocol for a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture

Objective: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture.Setting: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community.Participants: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area.Intervention: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers.Results: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported.Conclusions: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT

Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR)

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fracture is a major health problem in old age, with annual UK health and social care costs of £2.3B. Rehabilitation has the potential to maximise functional recovery and maintain independent living, but evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop an enhanced community-based rehabilitation package following surgical treatment for proximal femoral fracture and to assess acceptability and feasibility for a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation. DESIGN: Phase I - realist review, survey and focus groups to develop the rehabilitation package. Phase II - parallel-group, randomised (using a dynamic adaptive algorithm) feasibility study with focus groups and an anonymised cohort study. SETTING: Recruitment was from orthopaedic wards of three acute hospitals in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, North Wales. The intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who had received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by the clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). Usual care was variable and consisted of multidisciplinary rehabilitation delivered by the acute hospital, community hospital and community services depending on need and availability. The intervention was designed to enhance rehabilitation by improving patients' self-efficacy and increasing the amount and quality of patients' practice of physical exercise and activities of daily living. It consisted of a patient-held information workbook, a goal-setting diary and six additional therapy sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL) index. The secondary outcome measures included the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I), Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and service use measures. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers. RESULTS: Sixty-two participants were recruited (23% of those who were eligible), 61 were randomised (control, n = 32; intervention, n = 29) and 49 (79%) were followed up at 3 months. Compared with the cohort study, a younger, healthier subpopulation was recruited. There were minimal differences in most outcomes between the two groups, including the BADL index, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.5 (Cohen's d = 0.29). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement on the NEADL scale relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d = 0.63). There was a trend for greater improvement in FES-I and HADS in the intervention group, but with small effect sizes, with an adjusted mean difference of 4.2 (Cohen's d = 0.31) and 1.3 (Cohen's d = 0.20), respectively. The cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a possible small relative increase in quality-adjusted life-years in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention, although recruitment was challenging. The NEADL scale was more responsive than the BADL index, suggesting that the intervention could enable participants to regain better levels of independence compared with usual care. This should be tested in a definitive Phase III RCT. There were two main limitations of the study: the feasibility study lacked power to test for differences between the groups and a ceiling effect was observed in the primary measure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22464643. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information