New clinical and biological insights from the international TARGIT-A randomised trial of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial reported risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy for breast cancer to be as effective as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Here, we present further detailed analyses. METHODS: In total, 2298 women (≥45 years, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤3.5 cm, cN0-N1) were randomised. We investigated the impact of tumour size, grade, ER, PgR, HER2 and lymph node status on local recurrence-free survival, and of local recurrence on distant relapse and mortality. We analysed the predictive factors for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT as part of the risk-adapted approach, using regression modelling. Non-breast cancer mortality was compared between TARGIT-IORT plus EBRT vs. EBRT. RESULTS: Local recurrence-free survival was no different between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT, in every tumour subgroup. Unlike in the EBRT arm, local recurrence in the TARGIT-IORT arm was not a predictor of a higher risk of distant relapse or death. Our new predictive tool for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT is at https://targit.org.uk/addrt . Non-breast cancer mortality was significantly lower in the TARGIT-IORT arm, even when patients received supplemental EBRT, HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.88) P = 0.0091. CONCLUSION: TARGIT-IORT is as effective as EBRT in all subgroups. Local recurrence after TARGIT-IORT, unlike after EBRT, has a good prognosis. TARGIT-IORT might have a beneficial abscopal effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741 (21/7/2004), NCT00983684 (24/9/2009).

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

PURPOSE: We determined the early efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation with a coil design for focal ablation of clinically significant localized prostate cancer visible at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective IDEAL phase 2 development study (Focal Prostate Radiofrequency Ablation, NCT02294903) recruited treatment-naïve patients with a single focus of significant localized prostate cancer (Gleason 7 or 4 mm or more of Gleason 6) concordant with a lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Intervention was a focal ablation with a bipolar radiofrequency system (Encage™) encompassing the lesion and a predefined margin using nonrigid magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. Primary outcome was the proportion of men with absence of significant localized disease on biopsy at 6 months. Trial followup consisted of serum prostate specific antigen, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 1 week, and 6 and 12 months post-ablation. Validated patient reported outcome measures for urinary, erectile and bowel functions, and adverse events monitoring system were used. Analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS: Of 21 patients recruited 20 received the intervention. Baseline characteristics were median age 66 years (IQR 63-69) and preoperative median prostate specific antigen 7.9 ng/ml (5.3-9.6). A total of 18 patients (90%) had Gleason 7 disease with median maximum cancer 7 mm (IQR 5-10), for a median of 2.8 cc multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions (IQR 1.4-4.8). Targeted biopsy of the treated area (median number of cores 6, IQR 5-8) showed absence of significant localized prostate cancer in 16/20 men (80%), concordant with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. There was a low profile of side effects at patient reported outcome measures analysis and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy of significant localized prostate cancer associated with a magnetic resonance imaging lesion using bipolar radiofrequency showed early efficacy to ablate cancer with low rates of genitourinary and rectal side effects.

Long term survival and local control outcomes from single dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy (TARGIT-IORT) for early breast cancer: TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer. DESIGN: Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING: 32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes. RESULTS: Between 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 v 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 v 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.

Effect of Delayed Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy vs Whole-Breast Radiotherapy on Local Recurrence and Survival: Long-term Results From the TARGIT-A Randomized Clinical Trial in Early Breast Cancer.

Importance: Conventional adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer given daily for several weeks is onerous and expensive. Some patients may be obliged to choose a mastectomy instead, and some may forgo radiotherapy altogether. We proposed a clinical trial to test whether radiotherapy could be safely limited to the tumor bed. Objective: To determine whether delayed second-procedure targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) is noninferior to whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in terms of local control. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, randomized (1:1 ratio) noninferiority trial, 1153 patients aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma smaller than 3.5 cm treated with breast conservation were enrolled from 28 centers in 9 countries. Data were locked in on July 3, 2019. Interventions: The TARGIT-A trial was started in March 2000; patients were randomized after needle biopsy to receive TARGIT-IORT immediately after lumpectomy under the same anesthetic vs EBRT and results have been shown to be noninferior. A parallel study, described in this article, was initiated in 2004; patients who had their cancer excised were randomly allocated using separate randomization tables to receive EBRT or delayed TARGIT-IORT given as a second procedure by reopening the lumpectomy wound. Main Outcomes and Measures: A noninferiority margin for local recurrence rate of 2.5% at 5 years, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: Overall, 581 women (mean [SD] age, 63 [7] years) were randomized to delayed TARGIT-IORT and 572 patients (mean [SD] age, 63 [8] years) were randomized to EBRT. Sixty patients (5%) had tumors larger than 2 cm, or had positive nodes and only 32 (2.7%) were younger than 50 years. Delayed TARGIT-IORT was not noninferior to EBRT. The local recurrence rates at 5-year complete follow-up were: delayed TARGIT-IORT vs EBRT (23/581 [3.96%] vs 6/572 [1.05%], respectively; difference, 2.91%; upper 90% CI, 4.4%). With long-term follow-up (median [IQR], 9.0 [7.5-10.5] years), there was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-1.003; P = .052), mastectomy-free survival (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.65-1.18; P = .38), distant disease-free survival (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.72-1.39; P = .98), or overall survival (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.35; P = .80). Conclusions and Relevance: These long-term data show that despite an increase in the number of local recurrences with delayed TARGIT-IORT, there was no statistically significant decrease in mastectomy-free survival, distant disease-free survival, or overall survival. Trial Registration: ISRCTN34086741, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00983684.

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

INTRODUCTION: Oxygen 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 SpO2 of 96% or above. Small pilot studies have demonstrated that permissive hypoxaemia (aiming for a lower SpO2 than 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 ANALYSIS: Targeted 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 SpO2 target of either 88%-92% or ≥96% while intubated with an endotracheal tube. Clinical teams can adjust FIO2 and 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 DISSEMINATION: This 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 NUMBER: NCT03287466; Pre-results.

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 ≥4mm; secondary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥4+3=7, maximum cancer core length ≥6mm) 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.

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving 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 (EBRT) over several weeks. DESIGN: The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. 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 which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world. SETTING: Thirty-three centres in 11 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size. INTERVENTIONS: TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality. RESULTS: In total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%; p = 0.04; Pnon-inferiority = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%; p = 0.31; Pnon-inferiority = 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 (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%; p = 0.069; Pnon-inferiority = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 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 (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%; p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 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 (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%; p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of > 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 in the UK by £8-9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs. LIMITATIONS: The number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (< 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for > 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone-sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT. FUTURE WORK: The analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Environmental and social benefits of the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: data from UK TARGIT-A trial centres and two UK NHS hospitals offering TARGIT IORT.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the journeys and CO2 emissions if women with breast cancer are treated with risk-adapted single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) rather than several weeks' course of external beam whole breast radiotherapy (EBRT) treatment. SETTING: (1) TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial (ISRCTN34086741) which compared TARGIT with traditional EBRT and found similar breast cancer control, particularly when TARGIT was given simultaneously with lumpectomy, (2) 2 additional UK centres offering TARGIT. PARTICIPANTS: 485 UK patients (249 TARGIT, 236 EBRT) in the prepathology stratum of TARGIT-A trial (where randomisation occurred before lumpectomy and TARGIT was delivered simultaneously with lumpectomy) for whom geographical data were available and 22 patients treated with TARGIT after completion of the TARGIT-A trial in 2 additional UK breast centres. OUTCOME MEASURES: The shortest total journey distance, time and CO2 emissions from home to hospital to receive all the fractions of radiotherapy. METHODS: Distances, time and CO2 emissions were calculated using Google Maps and assuming a fuel efficiency of 40 mpg. The groups were compared using the Student t test with unequal variance and the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test. RESULTS: TARGIT patients travelled significantly fewer miles: TARGIT 21 681, mean 87.1 (SE 19.1) versus EBRT 92 591, mean 392.3 (SE 30.2); had lower CO2 emissions 24.7 kg (SE 5.4) vs 111 kg (SE 8.6) and spent less time travelling: 3 h (SE 0.53) vs 14 h (SE 0.76), all p<0.0001. Patients treated with TARGIT in 2 hospitals in semirural locations were spared much longer journeys (753 miles, 30 h, 215 kg CO2 per patient). CONCLUSIONS: The use of TARGIT intraoperative radiotherapy for eligible patients with breast cancer significantly reduces their journeys for treatment and has environmental benefits. If widely available, 5 million miles (8 000 000 km) of travel, 170 000 woman-hours and 1200 tonnes of CO2 (a forest of 100 hectares) will be saved annually in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN34086741; Post-results.

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.