SummaryBackgroundThe international standard radiotherapy schedule for early breast cancer delivers 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy over 5 weeks, but there is a long history of non-standard regimens delivering a lower total dose using fewer, larger fractions (hypofractionation). We aimed to test the benefits of radiotherapy schedules using fraction sizes larger than 2·0 Gy in terms of local-regional tumour control, normal tissue responses, quality of life, and economic consequences in women prescribed post-operative radiotherapy.MethodsBetween 1999 and 2001, 2215 women with early breast cancer (pT1-3a pN0-1 M0) at 23 centres in the UK were randomly assigned after primary surgery to receive 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy over 5 weeks or 40 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy over 3 weeks. Women were eligible for the trial if they were aged over 18 years, did not have an immediate reconstruction, and were available for follow-up. Randomisation method was computer generated and was not blinded. The protocol-specified principal endpoints were local-regional tumour relapse, defined as reappearance of cancer at irradiated sites, late normal tissue effects, and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN59368779.Findings1105 women were assigned to the 50 Gy group and 1110 to the 40 Gy group. After a median follow up of 6·0 years (IQR 5·0–6·2) the rate of local-regional tumour relapse at 5 years was 2·2% (95% CI 1·3–3·1) in the 40 Gy group and 3·3% (95% CI 2·2 to 4·5) in the 50 Gy group, representing an absolute difference of −0·7% (95% CI −1·7% to 0·9%)—ie, the absolute difference in local-regional relapse could be up to 1·7% better and at most 1% worse after 40 Gy than after 50 Gy. Photographic and patient self-assessments indicated lower rates of late adverse effects after 40 Gy than after 50 Gy.InterpretationA radiation schedule delivering 40 Gy in 15 fractions seems to offer rates of local-regional tumour relapse and late adverse effects at least as favourable as the standard schedule of 50 Gy in 25 fractions.

BACKGROUND: Although lymphovascular invasion (LVI) has been associated with a poor outcome in patients with breast cancer, it is not included in most internationally recognized staging systems, including the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) classification. This is mainly because it remains unclear whether the presence of LVI is an independent, high-risk criterion in clinically relevant staging subgroups. METHODS: The current study was based on a large and well characterized consecutive series of patients who had operable (pathologic T1 [pT1]-pT2, pathologic N0 [pN0]-pN3, M0) breast cancer (3812 informative cases) who were treated according to standard protocols at a single institution and who had long-term follow-up to assess the prognostic value of definite LVI in clinically and molecularly relevant staging subgroups. RESULTS: LVI was strongly associated with both breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the entire series and in different subgroups. Multivariate analyses identified LVI as an independent predictor of both BCSS and DMFS in patients with operable breast cancer overall; in the TNM clinical subgroups pT1a-pT1c/pN0 and pT2/pN0; and in the molecular classes estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ER-negative, human epidermal growth factor 2 [HER2]-negative, and triple-negative. In patients who had lymph node-negative tumors, LVI could be used as a high-risk criterion providing survival disadvantage equivalent to that provided by 1 or 2 involved lymph nodes (pN0 to pN1) and to that provided by 1 size category (pT1 to pT2). The use of immunohistochemistry for detecting an endothelial-specific marker contributed to the prognostic significance of LVI when applied to routine LVI negative/possible cases. CONCLUSIONS: LVI provided a strong predictor of outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer and should be incorporated into breast cancer staging systems.

No abstract

No abstract