
Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial
Introduction
,
For many decades, schedules of adjuvant radiotherapy for these patients delivered 25 fractions of 2 Gy over 5 weeks. Randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up have since confirmed that fewer, larger fractions giving a lower total dose are at least as safe and effective as the previously used international standard.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Specifically, mature data confirm the safety and non-inferiority of 15 or 16 fractions of about 2·7 Gy to total doses of 40·0 Gy or 42·5 Gy.
,
A 3-week schedule of 15 fractions has been the UK standard of care for adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for early breast cancer since 2009 and is now an international standard for adjuvant local radiotherapy.
,
There is no reason to assume that 15 fractions represent the lower limits of this hypofractionated and accelerated approach. We report outcomes of the FAST-Forward randomised phase 3 trial testing two dose levels of a five-fraction regimen delivered in 1 week against 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for patients prescribed local radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy for early breast cancer. The objectives are to identify a 1-week schedule non-inferior to a standard 3-week regimen for 5-year local tumour control and similar in terms of late adverse effects. FAST-Forward was informed by the FAST trial that tested two dose levels of five once-weekly fractions;
,
FAST trial results to 10-year follow-up are to be published soon. The trial design used dose levels estimated to be the upper and lower bounds that are isoeffective with the control schedule in terms of tumour control and normal tissue effects.
Evidence before this study
We searched PubMed on April 22, 2020, using the search terms “breast cancer”, “adjuvant radiotherapy”, “hypofractionation”, and “randomised clinical trials”. We searched for primary research and reviews published in English between Jan 1, 1980, and April 22, 2020. We found 13 randomised studies testing adjuvant breast hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens against standard fractionation ranging in sample size from 30 to 2236 patients. All offered consistent support for the experimental approach.
Radiotherapy (radiation therapy) after primary surgery for early breast cancer has historically been delivered in five daily doses (fractions) of 1·8–2·0 Gy per week over at least 5 weeks, but randomised phase 3 clinical trials done in Canada, the UK, and subsequently, China and Denmark have confirmed the safety and efficacy of 15-fraction or 16-fraction schedules using daily fractions of 2·7 Gy. Four of these trials published 10-year follow-up data on a total of 7000 patients, and 3-week schedules have replaced traditional regimens in many countries over the past decade for most, if not all, patients prescribed local or locoregional radiation therapy after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy. Most recently, long-term outcome data for a five-fraction schedule delivered by once-weekly treatments has been reported, which suggests further scope for simplifying curative radiotherapy for women with early breast cancer.
Added value of this study
15 or 16 fractions over 3·0–3·2 weeks are unlikely to represent the limits of this approach, called hypofractionation. The FAST-Forward trial shows that 26 Gy in five fractions of 5·2 Gy to the conserved breast or post-mastectomy chest wall after primary surgery is non-inferior in terms of 5-year ipsilateral local tumour relapse to 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks within an absolute 1·6% non-inferiority margin compared with 2% incidence with 40 Gy. The 5-day schedule causes milder early skin reaction and similar rates of late adverse effects. When mature, a randomised FAST-Forward substudy will report the safety of the five-fraction regimen for patients prescribed radiotherapy to breast or chest wall combined with axilla or supraclavicular fossa.
Implications of all the available evidence
FAST-Forward results confirm that 26 Gy in five fractions is as effective and safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. The 1-week schedule has major benefits over the 3-week or 5-week regimens in terms of convenience and cost for patients and for health services globally.
Methods
Study design
photographic assessments of late adverse effects, and patient-reported outcomes; not all centres participated in the substudies. Following recruitment into the main trial a further substudy opened, testing the same fractionation schedules for patients requiring radiotherapy to the axilla or supraclavicular fossa lymph nodes after sentinel node biopsy or supraclavicular fossa only (levels 3–4) after axillary dissection with a primary endpoint focusing on safety. Patients and results from this substudy are not reported here because follow-up is not yet mature. FAST-Forward was approved by the national South East Coast Kent research ethics committee (11/LO/0958) and local research and development offices of all participating centres. The trial protocol is in the appendix (pp 15–78).
Patients
Eligible patients were women or men aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1–3, pN0–1, M0) following complete microscopic excision of the primary tumour by breast conservation surgery or mastectomy (reconstruction allowed), recruited in the UK from 47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referral centres. A protocol amendment on Feb 15, 2013, excluded the lowest-risk patients (aged ≥65 years, pT1, grade 1 or 2, oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, HER2 negative, pN0, M0) to increase the overall primary event rate. All patients had axillary surgery (sentinel node biopsy or axillary dissection); nodal radiotherapy was not allowed in the main study. Concurrent endocrine therapy or trastuzumab, or both, were permitted but not concurrent chemotherapy. For the patient-reported outcomes substudy all patients at participating centres were eligible. All patients who had breast conservation surgery were eligible for the photographic substudy at participating centres. A small number of patients who had had mastectomy were recruited into the photographic substudy to validate the scoring method in patients who had chest wall radiotherapy, but are not reported here because photographs were only available for 76 patients. All patients provided written informed consent.
Randomisation and masking
Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either 40 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy; 27 Gy in five fractions of 5·4 Gy; or 26 Gy in five fractions of 5·2 Gy. A sequential tumour bed radiotherapy boost to the conserved breast was allowed, with centres required to specify boost intention and dose (10 Gy or 16 Gy in 2-Gy fractions) before randomisation. Randomisation was done by telephone or fax from the recruiting centre to the Institute of Cancer Research-Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), Sutton, London, UK, and used an in-house bespoke trial-specific randomisation system set-up by the ICR-CTSU IT team. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used (block sizes 6 and 9), stratified by radiotherapy centre and risk group (high [age <50 years or grade 3] vs low [age ≥50 years and grade 1 or 2]). Treatment allocation was not masked to clinicians or patients.
and FAST
trials generating α/β values for late normal tissue effects. Assuming an α/β value of 3 Gy and no effect of overall time on outcomes, 27 Gy in five fractions of 5·4 Gy was predicted to match late normal tissue effects of 40 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·7 Gy or 46 Gy in 23 fractions of 2 Gy. Allowance for a possible effect of treatment time informed the choice of the slightly lower 26 Gy dose level.
Radiotherapy
Assessments
In the patient-reported outcomes substudy, questionnaires were administered at baseline (before randomisation) and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-BR23 breast cancer module, body image scale, and protocol-specific questions relating to changes to the affected breast after treatment (including breast appearance changed, smaller, harder or firmer, and skin appearance changed). Patient assessments used a four-point scale (not at all, a little, quite a bit, and very much).
Breast size and surgical deficit were assessed from the baseline photographs on a three-point scale (small, medium, and large).
Outcomes
Statistical analysis
) to exclude an absolute increase of 1·6% in 5-year ipsilateral breast tumour relapse incidence for a five-fraction schedule compared with control, assuming 2% 5-year incidence in the 40 Gy group (START data,
and allowing for reduced ipsilateral breast tumour relapse due to evolution of surgical techniques and systemic therapy). The 1·6% absolute non-inferiority margin was defined at the trial design stage by the protocol development group, which included clinicians and patient advocates and was considered to be acceptable and appropriate. Binary proportions were used for the sample size calculations because event rates are so low. Estimates allowed for 10% loss to follow-up or unevaluable patients, expected to be largely due to development of metastatic disease. 2196 patients (732 per group) was estimated for the photographic and patient-reported outcomes substudies to provide 80% power to detect an 8% difference in the 5-year prevalence of late normal tissue effects between the five-fraction schedules (assuming 35% with 5-year mild or marked change in photographic breast appearance from START-B 40 Gy results
), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up or unevaluable patients.
Primary assessment of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (corresponding to one-sided 97·5% CI) for the absolute difference in 5-year ipsilateral breast tumour relapse was less than 1·6%. Non-inferiority of each five-fraction schedule versus control was also tested using the a priori critical HR of 1·81 (ln0·964/ln0·98, from protocol-specified incidence); p<0·025 was deemed statistically significant (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule). An exploratory competing risks analysis was done for ipsilateral breast tumour relapse, with death from any cause as a competing event in a Fine–Gray competing risks regression model.
including all assessments, comparing groups across the whole follow-up period using odds ratios (ORs) and the Wald test. Generalised estimating equations models included a term for years of follow-up, enabling time trends to be modelled. Additionally, to enable comparison of clinician-assessed normal tissue effects with results reported from other trials, survival analysis methods analysed time to first moderate or marked event, including Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative incidence, and groups compared using HRs from Cox proportional hazards regression and the pairwise log-rank test.
Scores for change in photographic breast appearance at 2 and 5 years were modelled using generalised estimating equations. Categories of mild and marked change in photographic breast appearance were combined for analysis because very few had marked changes. Pairwise comparisons of mild or marked change at 2 or 5 years between groups were described by ORs obtained from the generalised estimating equations models and the Wald test. Because of multiple testing, a significance level of 0·005 was used for the clinician and patient normal tissue effects assessments; all hypotheses for the normal tissue effects endpoints were two-sided.
The α/β estimate for breast cancer was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model of time to first ipsilateral breast tumour relapse, and for late normal tissue effects from generalised estimating equations models including all follow-up assessments (separate models for photographic and clinician assessments). Each model included terms for total dose and total dose multiplied by fraction size; the α/β ratio was calculated by dividing the two parameter estimates respectively, with a 95% CI estimated from the model using the covariance of the two estimates (lower confidence limits were truncated at zero). Isoeffect doses in 2 Gy equivalents (EQD2) were calculated for the five-fraction schedules, together with an estimate of the five-fraction schedule that would be isoeffective with 40 Gy in 15 fractions in terms of local tumour control and late normal tissue effects. No correction was made for difference in treatment time.
Role of the funding source
The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Results

Figure 1FAST-Forward trial profile
*One patient had no radiotherapy as they were unable to get into a stable position; three were given 40 Gy in 15 fractions (one because of concern for brachial plexus, one decided on a different treatment plan, and one because of constraints of treatment planning). †One patient had no radiotherapy because they were diagnosed with pemphigoid and eight were given 40 Gy in 15 fractions (one because dose constraints were not met, one was unable to plan within protocol constraints because of tumour bed position, one had poor planning target volume coverage, one had technical difficulties in planning, one was transferred to direct electron field, one had a simulator plan because 3D images were not possible, one had a small pericardial effusion found at planning, and one gave no reason).
Data are n (%) or n/N (%) unless otherwise stated. ER=oestrogen receptor.
Table 2Relapse and mortality by fractionation schedule: time-to-event analysis (n=4096)
Hazard ratios less than 1 favour five-fraction schedules. p values were calculated by log-rank test (two-sided).

Figure 2Cumulative risk of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse by fractionation schedule
Table 3Relapses, second primary cancers, and deaths by fractionation schedule (n=4096)
Data are n (%). Patients reporting events of more than one type are included in each relevant row.
Table 4Longitudinal analysis of moderate or marked clinician-assessed late normal tissue effects for patients with at least one annual clinical assessment (n=3975)
Results for years of follow-up show trend in normal tissue effects over follow-up across all fractionation schedules. p values are calculated by Wald test; odds ratios are estimated from the generalised estimating equations model including all follow-up data and show relative odds of moderate or marked adverse event (vs none or mild) for each pairwise comparison of fractionation schedules across all follow-up assessments.
Table 5Longitudinal analysis of moderate or marked patient-assessed late normal tissue effects from baseline to 5 years for patients with at least one completed questionnaire (n=1774)
Results for years of follow-up show trend in normal tissue effects over follow-up across all fractionation schedules. p values are calculated by Wald test; odds ratios are estimated from the generalised estimating equations model including all questionnaires (baseline to 5 years) and show relative odds of moderate or marked adverse events (vs none or mild) for each pairwise comparison of fractionation schedules across all questionnaires.
The unadjusted α/β estimate for any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was 1·7 Gy (95% CI 1·2 to 2·3), giving EQD2 estimates of 47·1 Gy for 40 Gy in 15 fractions, 51·6 Gy for 27 Gy in 5 fractions, and 48·3 Gy for 26 Gy in 5 fractions; adjusting for prognostic factors (age, boost, and whole-breast planning treatment volume as a proxy for breast size) made very little difference. The α/β estimated from the photographic endpoint (adjusting for breast size and surgical deficit assessed from the baseline photographs) was very similar (1·8 Gy [1·1 to 2·4]). The unadjusted α/β estimate for patient-reported change in breast appearance was 2·3 Gy (1·8 to 2·9), resulting in EQD2 estimates of 46·1 Gy for 40 Gy, 48·2 Gy for 27 Gy, and 45·2 Gy for 26 Gy; adjusting for covariates made minimal difference.
Discussion
and UK trials
,
,
,
,
confirm that although normal tissue effects continue to accumulate beyond 5 years, there is evidence that relative differences between test and control groups change very little over time.
In the START-B trial, the HR for clinician-assessed breast shrinkage after 40 Gy in 15 fractions compared with 50 Gy in 25 fractions was 0·83 (95% CI 0·66–1·04) at 5 years and 0·80 (0·67–0·96) at 10 years, by which time the proportion of patients with breast shrinkage increased from 11·4% (9·5–13·6) at 5 years to 26·2% (23·2–29·6) at 10 years.
The findings of FAST-Forward can be applied to different prognostic groups in view of the very low overall ipsilateral breast tumour relapse incidence, a conclusion consistent with a meta-analysis of the 5861 patients entered into the three START trials, which identified no inconsistency of effect in terms of normal tissue effects or recurrence risk across any of the prognostic or treatment subgroups investigated.
Point estimates of α/β values, assuming no effect of time, for late normal tissue effects in FAST-Forward scored by clinicians, patients, and photographic assessments are closer to 2 Gy than the 3 Gy estimated in the earlier START
and FAST trials,
but 95% CIs overlap for each endpoint in all trials. In FAST, 915 women were randomly assigned after breast conservation surgery for node negative disease to 50 Gy in 25 fractions versus two dose levels of a five-fraction regimen delivered once weekly, thereby ensuring complete repair between fractions and controlling for overall treatment time.
,
The α/β value for change in photographic breast appearance in FAST was 2·6 Gy (1·4–3·7). Uncertainty about biological processes, which include a time factor in FAST-Forward, does not interfere with clinical evaluation and decisions on implementation of FAST-Forward results in similar patient groups.
- Polgár C
- Ott OJ
- Hildebrandt G
- et al.
,
,
,
Beyond its safety and effectiveness, the 26 Gy FAST-Forward schedule is convenient and substantially less expensive for patients and for health services. It is also likely to be safe for patients requiring regional radiotherapy, an approach that is under formal assessment in a randomised FAST-Forward substudy comparing 40 Gy in 15 fractions and 26 Gy in five fractions. Assuming no effect of time, 26 Gy in five fractions is equivalent to 46·8 Gy and 53·7 Gy in 2-Gy fractions assuming α/β values of 2 Gy and 1 Gy, respectively, dose intensities well within the limits of tolerance for these structures.
,
In terms of limitations of our study, there is no reason to consider the heart more sensitive to fraction size than most other soft tissues. It is undoubtedly sensitive to total dose but the tiny number of cardiac events in FAST-Forward prevents meaningful analysis.
Any heart exposure is potentially harmful even after 2 Gy fractions, so the priority is to exclude the heart from the treatment volume as far as possible using deep inspiration breath hold or a similar technique,
,
or partial breast radiotherapy.
The size of the trial prevents reliable subgroup analyses by patient age, tumour grade, receptor status, and systemic therapies, but consistent with our 10-year analyses of almost 6000 patients in the START hypofractionation trials, there is no suggestion of heterogeneity.
Finally, synchronous boost regimens were avoided despite current interest in this application of hypofractionation. It is safer to consider boost as an independent treatment variable such as tumour grade or adjuvant systemic therapy whose impacts are randomly distributed across treatment groups. This allows a pure assessment of whole-breast hypofractionation without having to consider the partial volume effects of different breast dose levels. Routine implementation of 26 Gy in five fractions can more naturally incorporate appropriate five-fraction synchronous boost regimens.
In conclusion, 5-year ipsilateral breast tumour relapse incidence after a 1-week course of adjuvant breast radiotherapy delivered in five fractions is non-inferior to the standard 3-week schedule according to the predefined inferiority threshold. The 26 Gy dose level is similar to 40 Gy in 15 fractions in terms of patient-assessed normal tissue effects, clinician-assessed normal tissue effects, and photographic change in breast appearance, and is similar to normal tissue effects expected after 46–48 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. The consistency of FAST-Forward results with earlier hypofractionation trials supports the adoption of 26 Gy in five daily fractions as a new standard for women with operable breast cancer requiring adjuvant radiotherapy to partial or whole breast.
AMB and JRY are the current and previous chief investigators respectively, and DAW is the chief clinical coordinator for the trial. JMB is the trials methodology lead within the Institute of Cancer Research-Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) and provided oversight and guidance for trial management throughout the trial. JRY, JMB, and JSH were responsible for the study design. AMB, JRY, and JSH wrote the first draft of the manuscript. JSH was responsible for statistical analyses and contributed to data interpretation. AA, DJB, CC, MC, SC, CEC, AG, AH, PH, AMK, CCK, CM, ZN, ES, NS, and IS are members of the FAST-Forward trial management group (TMG), which contributed to study design, was responsible for oversight throughout the trial and contributed to data interpretation and manuscript preparation. MAS and LS managed the study and data collection at ICR-CTSU. CM is a patient advocate member of the TMG and provided guidance for study documentation and reports. PH was the lead for the patient-reported outcomes substudy. ZN was responsible for radiotherapy quality assurance. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.
JMB, JSH, MAS, and LS report grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Cancer Research UK during the conduct of the study. JMB reports grants and non-financial support from Novartis (previously GlaxoSmithKline), AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, and Roche; and grants from Medivation, outside the submitted work. DAW reports travel grants from Roche Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. CCK reports personal fees from Roche Pharmaceutical outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.
link