A Two-arm, Non-randomised, Prospective, Multicentre Study Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Findings and Pathology Features to Select Patients With Early Breast Cancer for Omission of Post-operative Radiotherapy
Summary
The PROSPECTIVE trial aims to find out if using the results of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for early breast cancer can select people to not have radiotherapy and still have a low chance of the cancer coming back after surgery. The main question it aims to answer is: \* Will cancer come back in the same breast as the original cancer in patients who have surgery for their breast cancer, but who don't have radiotherapy afterwards because the results of an MRI before surgery showed favourable characteristics for not having radiotherapy.
Detailed description
Breast cancer is the most common serious malignancy in women and most patients are suitable for therapy involving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). For most patients, there is a lack of evidence that breast conserving surgery without adjuvant RT is safe and therefore patients bear the costs, inconvenience and morbidity of RT. Prior attempts to identify large subsets of patients for whom RT can be safely omitted based on clinicopathological features of the index cancer have had limited success, and so RT is currently omitted only in some women over 65 or 70 with small low risk cancers. Identification of a much larger subset of patients in whom adjuvant RT could be safely omitted would be hugely significant, not only to the patients, but to the entire health system. The ANZ 1002 PROSPECT study was a two-arm phase II study that used breast MRI findings and pathological features to identify a group of patients with low risk early breast cancer in whom RT may be safely omitted. The findings at the primary strongly support the hypothesis and suggest that the combination of preoperative MRI and pathological features can identify a substantial group of early breast cancer patients in whom adjuvant RT can be safely omitted. A Health Economic analysis of PROSPECT found that the avoided costs of RT and its potential side effects is likely to substantially outweigh the extra cost of MRI scans and associated investigations. Parallel cross-sectional studies assessing Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR) and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients taking part in PROSPECT who either did or did not receive RT and a control group found a substantially lower FCR in PROSPECT patients who omitted RT as well as improved HRQoL. The majority of screened and eligible patients (427/443 and 193/201, respectively) for PROSPECT were recruited from two Australian sites. Before the PROSPECT approach can be widely adopted, the findings need to be replicated in a multicentre, international study. In addition, patient reported outcomes and health economic assessments need to be performed prospectively and longitudinally. PROSPECTIVE is the follow-up to PROSPECT which will address these issues, and also include translational research aspects to further study the natural history and outcomes of this group of lower risk early breast cancers.
Arms & interventions
- RadiationArm A: Radiotherapy Omission
Omission of radiotherapy based on pre-surgical MRI and pathology findings at surgery.
- OtherArm B: Standard Treatment
Ineligible for RT omission on study; includes management of MRI-detected lesions.
Outcome measures
Primary
Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rate (IIRR) in low-risk patients omitting RT at a median of 5 years follow up
To determine the ipsilateral invasive recurrence rate (IIRR) in lower risk patients with unequivocally unifocal breast cancer and on breast MRI and favourable clinico-pathological features.
Time frame: Median of 5 years follow up (when 300th low risk patient in Arm A reaches 5 years follow up)
Secondary
Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rate (IIRR) in all participants omitting RT at a median of 10 years follow up after surgery.
Time frame: Median of 10 years follow up after surgery.
IIRR in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B.
Time frame: Median of 5 years and 10 years follow up after surgery.
Ipsilateral DCIS recurrence rate in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B.
Time frame: Median of 5 and 10 years follow up after surgery.
The combined ipsilateral DCIS and invasive recurrence rate (IRR) in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B.
Time frame: Median of 5 and 10 years follow up after surgery.
Regional recurrence rate in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B.
Time frame: Median of 5 and 10 years follow up after surgery.
Distant recurrence rate in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B..
Time frame: Median of 5 and 10 years follow up after surgery.
Contralateral DCIS and invasive breast cancer rate in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B
Time frame: Median of 5 and 10 years follow up after surgery.
Breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B
Time frame: Median of 5 and 10 years follow up after surgery.
Overall Survival (OS) in participants in Arm A1, Arm A2, Arm A, Arm B, and Arms A+B.
Time frame: Median of 5 and 10 years follow up after surgery.
PRO: Fear of Cancer Recurrence
Time frame: Median 24 months post-surgery
PRO: Levels of FCR and perception of risk of recurrence in Arm A over time.
Time frame: At median of 24 months post-surgery
PRO: Difference in FCR and perception of risk of recurrence between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: From allocation to 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow-up post-surgery.
PRO: Perception of risk of recurrence in Arm A and between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: From allocation to 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow up post-surgery
PRO: Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) (functional and aesthetic outcomes, fatigue, body image, financial toxicity) between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: At a median of 24 months post-surgery.
PRO: Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) (functional and aesthetic outcomes, fatigue, body image, financial toxicity) in Arm A
Time frame: From allocation to 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow up post-surgery
PRO: Difference over time in HRQoL (functional and aesthetic outcomes, fatigue, body image, financial toxicity) between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: From allocation to 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow-up post-surgery.
PRO: Quality of Life Years (QALYs) between Arms A and Arm B.
Time frame: At a median of 24 months follow up post-surgery.
PRO: Difference in QALYs over time between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: From registration to allocation, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow-up post-surgery..
PRO: Difference in Decision Regret between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: At median of 24 months follow up post-surgery.
PRO: Decision Regret in Arm A.
Time frame: At median 24 months of follow-up post-surgery.
PRO: Overall mental health and depression over time between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: From allocation to 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow-up post-surgery.
PRO: Overall mental health and differences over time in anxiety in Arm A.
Time frame: At 24 months median follow-up post-surgery.
PRO: Overall mental health (depression) over time between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: From allocation to 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow-up post-surgery.
PRO: Overall mental health (anxiety) over time between Arm A and Arm B.
Time frame: From allocation to 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 60 months median follow-up post-surgery.
Eligibility criteria
Study locations (2)
UCSF Breast Care Center
San Francisco, California, 94158
Baylor St Luke's Medical Centre
Houston, Texas, 77030