An international randomised controlled trial to compare targeted intra-operative radiotherapy (TARGIT) with conventional post-operative radiotherapy after conservative breast 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 over several weeks (EBRT). DESIGN AND SETTING: The TARGIT-A trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicenter, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1:1 ratio), clinical trial from 33 centres in 11 countries. 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 needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as delayed procedure. Risk-adapted approach meant that in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, then EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practiced in the real world. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were >=45 years of age with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably <= 3.5cm in size; 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. OUTCOMES: Primary: absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary: included toxicity, breast cancer specific and non-breast-cancer mortality. RESULTS: Values below are 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates for TARGIT vs. EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall (3·3%(2·1–5·1) vs. 1·3%(0·7–2·5),p=0.04,Pnoninferiority =0.00000012) and in the prepathology stratum(n=2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy(2·1%(1·1–4·2) vs. 1·1%(0·5–2·5),p=0.31,Pnoninferiority =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((5·4%(3·0–9·7) vs. 1·7%(0·6–4·9),p=0.069,Pnoninferiority= 0.06640). The local-recurrence-free survival when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy was 93.9%(95%CI 90.9 – 95.9) vs. EBRT: 92.5%(95%CI 89.7 – 94.6),p=0.35. In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone (PgR) receptor status was found to be the only predictor of outcome - hormone responsive patients (PgRpositive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy 1.4%(0.5-3.9) vs. EBRT 1.2%(0.5-2.9),p=0.77. Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6%[1·5–4·3] vs. 1·9%[1·1–3·2];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, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm 37 deaths, 3·9%(2·7–5·8) vs. 51 deaths, 5·3%(3·9–7·3),p=0.099). Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar QALYs, had a positive incremental Net Monetary Benefit that was borderline statistically significant from zero, and had a probability of over 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 by £8 million to £9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs. LIMITATIONS: The number of local recurrences is small however, the number of events for local-recurrence-free survival is not small (59 vs. 61); Occurrence of only a few events implies that the treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. The follow up not all 3451 patients is 5 years, although the number required to answer the main trial question (n=585) have more than 5 years follow up. FUTURE WORK: We shall repeat the analyses with longer follow up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGIT-B trial is testing whether TARGIT-Boost is superior to EBRT boost. CONCLUSION: For patients with breast cancer (women who are 45 years of age and older with hormone sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective, safer and less expensive alternative to postoperative EBRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684

Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

IntroductionOxygen is the most commonly administered drug to mechanically ventilated critically ill adults, yet little is known about the optimum oxygen saturation (SpO2) target for these patients; the current standard of care is an SpO2of 96% or above. Small pilot studies have demonstrated that permissive hypoxaemia (aiming for a lower SpO2than normal by using a lower fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FIO2)) can be achieved in the critically ill and appears to be safe. This approach has not been evaluated in a National Health Service setting. It is possible that permissive hypoxaemia may be beneficial to critically ill patients thus it requires robust evaluation.Methods and analysisTargeted OXygen therapY in Critical illness (TOXYC) is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether recruiting patients to a study of permissive hypoxaemia is possible in the UK. It will also investigate biological mechanisms that may underlie the links between oxygenation and patient outcomes. Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure will be recruited from critical care units at two sites and randomised (1:1 ratio) to an SpO2target of either 88%–92% or ≥96% while intubated with an endotracheal tube. Clinical teams can adjust FIO2and ventilator settings as they wish to achieve these targets. Clinical information will be collected before, during and after the intervention and blood samples taken to measure markers of systemic oxidative stress. The primary outcome of this study is feasibility, which will be assessed by recruitment rate, protocol adherence and withdrawal rates. Secondary outcomes will include a comparison of standard critical care outcome measures between the two intervention groups, and the measurement of biomarkers of systemic oxidative stress. The results will be used to calculate a sample size, likely number of sites and overall length of time required for a subsequent large multicentre RCT.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the London - Harrow Research Ethics Committee on 2 November 2017 (REC Reference 17/LO/1334) and received HRA approval on 13 November 2017. Results from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at medical and scientific meetings, in the NIHR Journals Library and patient information websites.Trial registration numberNCT03287466; Pre-results.</jats:sec

Prostate Radiofrequency Focal Ablation (ProRAFT) Trial: A Prospective Development Study Evaluating a Bipolar Radiofrequency Device to Treat Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: To determine early efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation with a coil design (bRFA) for focal ablation of clinically significant localised prostate cancer (sPCa)visible at mpMRI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective IDEAL phase 2 development study (NCT02294903) recruited treatment naive patients with a single focus of localised sPCa (Gleason 7 or 4 mm or more of Gleason 6) concordant with a lesion visible on multi-parametric MRI. Intervention was a focal ablation with a bRFA system (Encage®, Trod Medical) encompassing the lesion and a predefined margin using nonrigid MRI-ultrasound fusion. Primary outcome was the proportion of men with absence of sPCa on biopsy at 6 months. Trial follow up comprised serum PSA, mpMRI at 1 week, 6 and 12 months post ablation. Validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for urinary, erectile and bowel functions and adverse events monitoring system were used. Analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS: 20 of 21 patients recruited received the intervention. Baseline characteristics were a median age of 66 years (IQR 63-69), pre-operative median PSA of 7.9 ng/ml (5.3-9.6), 18 (90%) had Gleason 7 with median maximum cancer of 7 mm (IQR 5-10) for a median 2.8 cc mpMRI lesions (IQR 1.4-4.8). Targeted biopsy of the treated area (median number of cores=6, IQR 5-8) showed absence of sPCa in 16/20 men (80%), concordant with mpMRI. There was a low profile of side effects at PROMs analysis and no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy of sPCa associated with an MRI lesion using bRFA showed early efficacy to ablate cancer with low rates of genitourinary and rectal side-effects

The SmartTarget BIOPSY trial: A prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and MRI/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted prostate biopsies can improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and decrease the overdetection of insignificant cancers. Whether visual-registration targeting is sufficient or if augmentation with image-fusion software is needed is unknown. Objective: To assess concordance between the two methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a blinded, within-person randomised, paired validating clinical trial. From 2014 to 2016, 141 men who had undergone a prior (positive or negative) transrectal ultrasound biopsy and had a discrete lesion on mpMRI (score 3 to 5) requiring targeted transperineal biopsy were enrolled at a UK academic hospital; 129 underwent both biopsy strategies and completed the study. Intervention: The order of performing biopsies using visual-registration and a computer-assisted MRI/ultrasound image-fusion system (SmartTarget) on each patient was randomised. The equipment was reset between biopsy strategies to mitigate incorporation bias. Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer (primary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥3+4=7, maximum cancer core length ≥4 mm; secondary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥4+3=7, maximum cancer core length ≥6 mm) detected by each method was compared using McNemar's test of paired proportions. Results and Limitations: The two strategies combined detected 93 clinically significant prostate cancers (72% of the cohort). Each strategy individually detected 80/93 (86%) of these cancers; each strategy detected 13 cases missed by the other. Three patients experienced adverse events related to biopsy (urinary retention, urinary tract infection, nausea and vomiting). No difference in urinary symptoms, erectile function, or quality of life between baseline and follow-up (median 10.5 weeks) was observed. The key limitation was lack of parallel-group randomisation and limit on number of targeted cores. Conclusions: Visual-registration and image-fusion targeting strategies combined had the highest detection rate for clinically significant cancers. Targeted prostate biopsy should be performed using both strategies together. Patient Summary: We compared two prostate cancer biopsy strategies: visual-registration and image-fusion. The combination of the two strategies found the most clinically important cancers and should be used together whenever targeted biopsy is being performed

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

The SmartTarget Biopsy Trial: A Prospective, Within-person Randomised, Blinded Trial Comparing the Accuracy of Visual-registration and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Image-fusion Targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted prostate biopsies can improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and decrease the overdetection of insignificant cancers. It is unknown whether visual-registration targeting is sufficient or augmentation with image-fusion software is needed. Objective: To assess concordance between the two methods. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a blinded, within-person randomised, paired validating clinical trial. From 2014 to 2016, 141 men who had undergone a prior (positive or negative) transrectal ultrasound biopsy and had a discrete lesion on mpMRI (score 3–5) requiring targeted transperineal biopsy were enrolled at a UK academic hospital; 129 underwent both biopsy strategies and completed the study. Intervention: The order of performing biopsies using visual registration and a computer-assisted MRI/ultrasound image-fusion system (SmartTarget) on each patient was randomised. The equipment was reset between biopsy strategies to mitigate incorporation bias. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer (primary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥3 + 4 = 7, maximum cancer core length ≥4 mm; secondary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥4 + 3 = 7, maximum cancer core length ≥6 mm) detected by each method was compared using McNemar's test of paired proportions. Results and limitations: The two strategies combined detected 93 clinically significant prostate cancers (72% of the cohort). Each strategy detected 80/93 (86%) of these cancers; each strategy identified 13 cases missed by the other. Three patients experienced adverse events related to biopsy (urinary retention, urinary tract infection, nausea, and vomiting). No difference in urinary symptoms, erectile function, or quality of life between baseline and follow-up (median 10.5 wk) was observed. The key limitations were lack of parallel-group randomisation and a limit on the number of targeted cores. Conclusions: Visual-registration and image-fusion targeting strategies combined had the highest detection rate for clinically significant cancers. Targeted prostate biopsy should be performed using both strategies together. Patient summary: We compared two prostate cancer biopsy strategies: visual registration and image fusion. A combination of the two strategies found the most clinically important cancers and should be used together whenever targeted biopsy is being performed. Image-fusion results in a clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate were similar to those of visual registration performed by an experienced operator. Detection could be improved by 14% with no adverse effect on patient safety by adding image fusion to conventional visual-registration targeting