Scientific Publications Database

Article Title: Randomised feasibility trial to compare three standard of care chemotherapy regimens for early stage triple-negative breast cancer (REaCT-TNBC trial)
Authors: Hilton, John; Stober, Carol; Mazzarello, Sasha; Vandermeer, Lisa; Fergusson, Dean; Hutton, Brian; Clemons, Mark
Journal: PLOS ONE Volume 13 Issue 7
Date of Publication:2018
Abstract:
IntroductionDespite the importance of chemotherapy in the treatment of early stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), no one optimal regimen has been identified. We conducted a pilot trial comparing outcomes for the three most commonly used chemotherapy regimens to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger definitive trial.MethodsUsing integrated consent, newly diagnosed TNBC patients were randomised to one of three standard regimens: dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel, doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then weekly paclitaxel or 5-FU-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide then docetaxel. Feasibility endpoints included; physician engagement, accrual rates, physician compliance and patient satisfaction with the integrated consent model. Our anticipated pilot trial sample size was 35 randomised patients in one year.ResultsBetween August 30th , 2016 and January 31st 2017, 2 patients met eligibility and were randomised. A survey of 10 participating oncologists was performed to identify potential strategies to enhance accrual. Most investigators (9/10) believed that the best regimen for TNBC was unknown, and 4/10 felt this was a pressing clinical question. Physicians' responses suggested that poor accrual was due to: a lack of interest in some study arms as oncologists already had a preferred regimen (4/10) and concerns about trial demands in busy clinics (3/ 10). The pilot feasibility endpoints were not met and the study was closed.ConclusionsDespite initial interest in the trial question and multiple investigators agreeing to approach patients, this trial failed to meet feasibility endpoints. The reasons for poor accrual were multiple and require further evaluation if this important patient-centred question is to be answered.