CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2773 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

26 Gy in five fractions,
does it really help with Noninferior prevention of five-year ipsilateral breast tumor relapse versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions over three weeks?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 56 · Safety caution
A one-week 26-Gy schedule was noninferior to the three-week 40-Gy schedule for five-year local recurrence control
Overall moderate or marked normal-tissue effects did not differ significantly, but breast induration outside the tumor bed was more frequent with 26 Gy. A radiation oncologist must plan heart and lung doses and account for surgical and anatomic factors.
What the
research shows
The grade is C. FAST-Forward recorded five-year ipsilateral breast tumor relapse in 31/1,361 with 40 Gy and 21/1,368 with 26 Gy, HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38-1.16). The prespecified margin allowed no more than a 1.6-point excess for five-fraction schedules, critical HR 1.81. Because the CI upper bound 1.16 was below 1.81, 26 Gy was noninferior; this does not prove superiority. The noninferiority and active-control design cap the result at C with 56 points.
What the
ads claim
It is incorrect to say 26 Gy prevented more recurrences. The demonstrated claim is similar control within the accepted noninferiority margin; one-week convenience and specific normal-tissue harms must be presented together.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The 26-Gy regimen delivered 5.2 Gy per fraction in five fractions over about one week.
  • The control delivered 40 Gy as 2.67 Gy per fraction in 15 fractions over about three weeks.
  • This tested a linear-accelerator treatment strategy; company-supplied equipment or assessment tools were not reported.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2773 · C 56
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Across 97 UK hospitals, 4,110 patients were entered and randomized; 14 withdrew consent for all data use, leaving the prespecified primary intention-to-treat population of 4,096: 1,361, 1,367, and 1,368. Forty patients who did not receive allocated treatment or deviated remained in intention to treat. The per-protocol analysis was consistent, but the publication states, ‘full data for per-protocol analyses not shown as 99% treatment compliance,’ so it did not separately publish the exact PP denominator. Treatment was open label, but recurrence was an objective event, and central ICR-CTSU telephone or fax randomization used computer-generated mixed blocks. There was no early stopping; the planned five-year analysis was completed. NIHR-HTA 09/01/47 and Cancer Research UK funded the trial, with no reported company supply of radiotherapy equipment, trial materials, or assessment tools. Noninferiority and active control without placebo were counted as two design limitations.

02

Why this is classified as C (56)

A large publicly funded hard-outcome trial met its prespecified noninferiority margin, but one active-control noninferiority trial is capped at C with 56 points.

Counterpoint. C does not mean recurrence control failed. It means successful noninferiority cannot be converted into superiority.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked FAST-Forward's 4,096-person intention-to-treat analysis, consistent per-protocol result, prespecified 1.6-point and HR 1.81 margin, public funding, and normal-tissue harms

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Noninferior recurrence control versus 40 Gy in 15 fractionsCThe confidence-limit upper bound was 1.16 against the prespecified critical HR 1.81.
Superior recurrence control versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions?The trial tested noninferiority and did not establish superiority.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Multicenter open-label centrally randomized phase 3 noninferiority trial1,368NIHR-HTA 09/01/47 and Cancer Research UK; no reported company supply of trial equipment or toolsIpsilateral breast tumor relapse at five years26 Gy versus 40 Gy HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38-1.16), absolute difference -0.7 points (-1.3 to 0.3); noninferior below critical HR 1.81Large publicly funded hard-outcome noninferiority evidence
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Brunt AM, Haviland JS, Wheatley DA, et al.; FAST-Forward Trial Management Group. Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects. Lancet. 2020;395(10237):1613-1626. PMID: 32580883. PMCID: PMC7448957. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30932-6. ISRCTN19906132.
checked
Brunt AM, Haviland JS, Wheatley DA, et al. One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2023;27(25). DOI: 10.3310/WWBF1044. ISRCTN19906132.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

26 Gy in five fractions x noninferior recurrence control after early breast cancer surgery Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] 26 Gy in five fractions x noninferior recurrence control after early breast cancer surgery — Evidence Grade C·56. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/womens/fast-forward-26gy-five-fractions-early-breast-cancer-ipsilateral-recurrence-noninferiority/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.