Radiotherapy Quality Assurance Program in a cooperative group

Imaging and Data Acquisition in Clinical Trials for Radiation Therapy

Cancer treatment evolves through oncology clinical trials. Cancer trials are multimodal and complex. Assuring high-quality data are available to answer not only study objectives but also questions not anticipated at study initiation is the role of quality assurance. The National Cancer Institute reorganized its cancer clinical trials program in 2014. The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) was formed and within it was established a Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Organization. This organization is Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group, consisting of 6 quality assurance centers that provide imaging and radiation therapy quality assurance for the NCTN. Sophisticated imaging is used for cancer diagnosis, treatment, and management as well as for image-driven technologies to plan and execute radiation treatment. Integration of imaging and radiation oncology data acquisition, review, management, and archive strategies are essential for trial compliance and future research. Lessons learned from previous trials are and provide evidence to support diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy data acquisition in NCTN trials.

[Quality criteria in radiotherapy for head and neck cancers under the aegis of Head and Neck Intergroup]

The aim of radiotherapy is to deliver enough radiation to the tumor in order to achieve maximum tumour control in the irradiated volume with as few serious complications as possible with an irradiation dose as low as possible to normal tissue. The quality of radiotherapy is essential for optimal treatment and quality control is to reduce the bias in clinical trials avoiding possible major deviations. The assurance and quality control programs have been developed in large european (EORTC, GORTEC) and american cooperative groups (RTOG) of radiation oncology since the 1980s. We insist here on the importance of quality assurance in radiotherapy and the current status in this domain and the criteria for quality control especially for current clinical trials within GORTEC are discussed here.

Radiotherapy quality assurance review for a multi-center randomized trial of locally advanced esophageal cancer: the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) trial 0303

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiotherapy (RT) quality assurance (QA) for JCOG 0303.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

JCOG 0303 was a multi-center phase II/III trial that compared two types of chemotherapy administered concomitantly with RT for locally advanced esophageal cancer. RT requirements included a total dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions and CTV with a 2-cm margin cranio-caudally to the primary tumor. The QA assessment was given as per protocol (PP), deviation acceptable (DA), violation unacceptable (VU), and incomplete/not evaluable following predefined criteria for quality parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 142 cases were accrued. After excluding 36 incomplete/not evaluable, 106 (75%) were fully evaluable for RT quality review. Of these 106, there were 4 VU (4%) and overall RT compliance (PP + DA) was 96%. Comparing the incidence of VU based on the numbers enrolled by institution, the highest quarter of enrollment (≥7 cases) had no VU, while all VU (4; 11%) were from institutions enrolling <7 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the RTQA assessment for JCOG 0303 were sufficient to provide reliable results. Additional improvements will be needed for institutions with low accrual rates.

Initiation of a teleradiotherapeutic network for patients in German lymphoma studies

PURPOSE

Deviations of radiation treatment portals and dose from prospective treatment plans are unfavorable prognostic factors for lymphoma patients. Therefore, an extensive radiotherapy quality assurance program is used in the ongoing German lymphoma studies. The introduction of teleradiotherapy offered the opportunity to optimize and simplify the workflow of these quality assurance programs. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the feasibility of teleradiotherapy and to describe our experiences with these innovative tools.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

During this pilot phase, five radiotherapy centers were equipped with the hardware and software that guarantees a rapid and high-quality transfer of imaging data, as well as real-time teleconferences. The workstation consists of standard PCs with Windows NT as the operating system and the commercial telemedicine software Hipax.

RESULTS

As a first step, imaging communication between the radiotherapy reference centers in Cologne and Homburg/Saar was established. Subsequently, three additional radiotherapy departments (Universities of Berlin, Münster, and Munich) with large numbers of lymphoma patients were connected. Other study centers delivered digital imaging on mobile data carriers or via an Integrated Services Digital Network point-to-point connection. Communication units were completed for interactive teleconferences. A facility for central online documentation was installed. Telemedical functions were integrated into the ongoing radiotherapy quality assurance program. Since the introduction of a teleradiotherapeutic workstation in the radiotherapy reference center in Cologne in January 2001, the images of 10% (n = 228 patients) of all reviewed cases of the ongoing Hodgkin's disease 10-12 trials were delivered digitally. The amount of digitally available imaging is continuously increasing.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of teleradiotherapy improved the dialog between the radiotherapy reference centers and study centers and thus contributed toward high radiotherapy quality for lymphoma patients in Germany.

An evaluation of the relationship between the quality of prophylactic cranial radiotherapy in childhood acute leukemia and institutional experience: a Quality Assurance Review Center-Pediatric Oncology Group study

PURPOSE

The Pediatric Oncology Group Protocol 9404 was a prospective clinical trial of two forms of chemotherapy in childhood T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and advanced stage T-cell lymphoblastic non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The protocol called for prophylactic C1 whole brain external beam irradiation, 18 Gy in 2 Gy/fraction for 9 fractions. We hypothesized that a correlation would be found between the number of children irradiated on protocol by an institution and the compliance rate of that institution with radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) guidelines. We also hypothesized that QA compliance would improve as the study progressed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We scored the radiation dose as a minor deviation from protocol guidelines if the dose to the prescription point differed from the protocol by 6-10%, and a major deviation if it differed from protocol by > 10%. Treatment volumes were scored as a minor deviation if the margins were less than specified or the fields were excessively large. A major deviation was defined as the transection of a potential leukemia-bearing volume such as would be caused by blocking the cribriform plate, optic nerve, or temporal lobe. When the treating physician submitted a treatment plan and simulator film at the initiation of therapy to the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC), a rapid turn-around review of the plan and suggestions for improvement was provided. At the end of therapy, all simulator and port films were reviewed at the QARC.

RESULTS

We reviewed the data from 353 patients treated at 73 institutions in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Of these patients, 2% (n = 7) were not assessable for QA because of incomplete information. Minor quality deviations were found in 27.7% of patients (n = 98) and major deviations in 7.9% (n = 28). The frequency of major deviations for institutions placing 1-4 patients on study was 11% vs. 5.5% for institutions placing > or =5 patients (p < 0.09). The frequency of minor deviations was 28.6% for institutions placing 1-4 patients on study vs. 27.1% for institutions placing >5 patients (p not significant). The frequency of major deviations fell over time (1996-1997, 15.5% vs. 1998-2001, 4.7%, p < 0.001). The frequency of minor deviations did not (1996-1997, 29.9% vs. 1998-2001, 26.9%, p not significant).

CONCLUSION

For a relatively simple radiotherapy field, with clearly written protocol guidelines and rapid turn-around corrections from QARC, the rate of minor deviations was no different between institutions placing 1-4 patients on study and those placing > or =5. A trend (p < 0.09) was noted, however, for major deviations to decrease as a function of institutional experience, as well as over time (p < 0.001), supporting the validity of the hypothesis that pediatric clinical experience matters in QA for C1 whole brain leukemia radiotherapy.

Influence of a sampling review process for radiation oncology quality assurance in cooperative group clinical trials--results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) analysis

The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) designed a random sampling process and observed its influence upon radiotherapy review mechanisms in cooperative group clinical trials. The method of sampling cases for review was modeled from sampling techniques commonly used in pharmaceutical quality assurance programs, and applied to the initial (on-study) review of protocol cases. 'In control' (IC) status is defined for a given facility as the ability to meet minimum compliance standards. Upon achieving IC status, activation of the sampling process was linked to the rate of continued patient accrual for each participating institution in a given protocol. The sampling design specified that > or = 30% cases not in compliance would be detected with 80% power. A total of 458 cases was analyzed for initial review findings in four RTOG Phase III protocols. Initial review findings were compared with retrospective (final) review results. Of the 458 cases analyzed, 370 underwent initial review at on-study, while 88 did not require review as they were enrolled from institutions that had demonstrated protocol compliance. In the group that had both initial and final review, 345/370 (93%) were found to have followed the protocol or had a minor variation. Of the exempted cases, 79/88 (90%) were found to be per protocol or a minor variant. The sampling process proved itself to be cost-effective and resulted in a noticeable reduction in the workload, thus providing an improved approach to resource allocation for the group. Continued evaluation of the sampling mechanism is appropriate as study designs and participants vary over time, and as more data become available to study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Radiation therapy quality control in a clinical trial of adjuvant postoperative treatment for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Deviations from protocol can detract from the reliability of results obtained in prospective clinical trials. In an effort to decrease the number of deviations in a prospective trial of adjuvant treatment for rectal cancer, we undertook pretreatment review of the irradiated fields.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Before initiation of radiation therapy, patients' radiation therapy fields were simulated by their radiation oncologists and films were submitted for review. The treating physicians were then informed whether their fields were in compliance with the protocol or whether any modifications were needed.

RESULTS

Among the 625 patients participating in this study who received radiation therapy as a component of protocol treatment, 419 (67%) had no radiation therapy deviations, 127 (20%) had minor deviations, and 51 (8%) had major deviations; 28 (4%) could not be evaluated or did not receive protocol treatment because of circumstances beyond the treating radiation oncologist's control. The pretreatment quality control review identified major deviations in the radiation portals for 57 cases; these findings were communicated to the radiation oncologists prior to initiation of treatment, and, on final review, 40 had no deviation or only minor deviation.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of pretreatment quality control review, 40 additional patients would have had major deviations from their radiation therapy protocol. On the basis of these findings, it is estimated that pretreatment quality control reduced the rate of major deviation from 15% to 8%. Pretreatment review of radiation therapy parameters is an effective method of reducing the frequency of major deviations in prospective clinical trials.

An examination of the efficiency of some quality assurance methods commonly employed in clinical trials

The cost and efficiency of training clinical centre staff and of duplicate data entry in clinical trials is reviewed. Training is an essential component of quality assurance programmes and it is usually carried out at regular intervals in long-term clinical trials. Initial training of staff and regular retraining is important to assure standardization and it can lead to reduced trial costs. Interim training for new staff and for remedial purposes is less efficient than regularly scheduled training sessions. Regional centres for training and the use of computer aided instruction are two ways such interim training can be made more efficient and standardized. Duplicate data entry or verification can result in a substantial reduction in data entry errors depending on the nature of the data being keyed. Selective verification should especially be considered for important fields for which consistency checks cannot be performed, that are alphabetic or that are several characters in length. Quality assurance procedures should be implemented to monitor data entry accuracy in clinical trials.

Quality control of radiation therapy in multi-institutional randomized clinical trial for localized prostate cancer

The National Prostatic Cancer Project (NPCP) from 1978 through 1985 compared definitive radiation therapy for Stages B2, C, D1 lesions in those who received only radiation treatment to those who received two years of additional cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) or estramustine phosphate (Emcyt) chemotherapy. Two hundred fifty-four patients were entered and 229 evaluated for compliance of the spatial localization of the prostate through review of the simulation and port films. In 78 per cent this was satisfactory, whereas in 12 per cent it was unsatisfactory, and another 10 per cent were not evaluable. The principle cause of an unsatisfactory rating was failure to adequately cover the prostatic target volume, especially the apex which was found to be variable in location. Routine use of retrograde urethrocystography is urged as part of the localization method in patients to receive definitive external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The role and impact of quality assurance programs for radiotherapy in cooperative clinical study groups is reviewed and discussed.

Quality assurance control in the EORTC cooperative group of radiotherapy. 3. Intercomparison in an anatomical phantom

Two papers concerning the quality control study organised by the EORTC (European Organisation for Research on Treatment of Cancer) Cooperative Group on Radiotherapy have been published. The medical profile (part 1) and the dosimetric intercomparison (part 2) of the participating institutions were presented. This part (paper 3) presents an integrated clinical and dosimetric investigation in an anatomical phantom. A tonsillar tumour and a homolateral subdigastric node were marked in an anatomical phantom. The institutions were asked to treat the phantom once like an ordinary patient. The phantom was loaded with dosimeters and irradiated. From the results obtained, it can be concluded that we did not find any major dosimetric problem related to absorbed dose calibration or calculation in the phantom. However, several major problems were related to non-optimal planning, treatment technique and dose distribution. The investigation shows the importance of a quality assurance programme for cooperative groups.

Quality assurance control in the EORTC cooperative group of radiotherapy. 2. Dosimetric intercomparison

The European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) has performed site reviews at 17 institutions participating in clinical trials organized by the Cooperative Group of Radiotherapy. In this paper the dosimetric part of the quality assurance control programme is presented. In a previous paper (part 1) the medical profile of the participating centres was presented. In part 3 an integrated clinical and dosimetric investigation in an anatomical phantom will be presented. The deviations between the absorbed dose values, for specific points along the beam axis in a water phantom, determined by us and reported by the hospitals were within an acceptable level of variation (about +/- 3%) for 85, 70 and 71% of the 60Co gamma, X-ray and electron beams, respectively. In some scanning electron beams, too large deviations were found. The flatness and symmetry of the beams were measured. 73% of the X-ray and 60% of the electron beams were within the acceptable levels of variations. Dosimetric recommendations for institutions participating in EORTC clinical trials are presented.

Impact of a dosimetry review program on radiotherapy in group trials

The impact of a quality assurance program on protocol compliance has been explored. A sample of 2258 patients, who received radiation therapy on 18 different NCI funded protocols, was selected for this study from the more than 6200 cases reviewed by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC) from 1974 to 1983. Analysis of this sample reveals a significant decrease in the protocol non-compliance rate as a function of QA participation time (35% down to 5%). The educational impact of the QA program is demonstrated by the drop in the protocol dose deviation rate from 11.4% (before QARC feedback) to 3.6% (after feedback, p less than .001). The corresponding drop in protocol deviations in treatment volume is from 21.5% to 10.5% (p less than .001). The effect of the "on-treatment" review process is studied; it is demonstrated that this process cuts the rate of major deviations in half. The technical discrepancies in dose are also analyzed and discussed.

Development of quality assurance in radiation therapy in North America

Although diagnostic radiology developed rapidly following Roentgen's discovery, limitations on voltage delayed penetrating external radiation therapy until after World War II. Quality assurance has developed in both the USA and Canada in many different institutions. Tolerances for implementation of the prescribed tumor dose have been established. A series of quality assurance procedures for calibration, three dimensional dose distributions, the treatment planning process, and for treatment delivery have been formulated in protocols and their development is sketched briefly. The importance of computerized tomography in treatment planning and computerized record and verify systems in treatment delivery is emphasized.

Radiotherapy quality assurance in clinical trials

The goal of radiation therapy is to yield the greatest possible uncomplicated local and regional tumor control. An acceptable quality of life with few severe complications, anatomical defects or psychological disturbances should be an integral objective of excellent radiation therapy. Inasmuch as higher doses of irradiation and adequacy of treatment portals (volume irradiated) appear to correlate with greater probability of tumor control and major complications, there is a critical need to optimize treatment planning and quality assurance in radiation therapy. Along with this, techniques must be developed for reliable patient reposition and immobilization so that the optimized treatment plan can be translated into precise delivery of the irradiation. It is obvious that in clinical trials the basic parameters of therapy need to be optimally observed, in order to make comparison of experimental arms more reliable. It is easier to achieve uniformity of technical factors in a study at a single institution than in multi-institutional cooperative groups. Thus, stringent criteria must be incorporated into the protocol describing the requirements and techniques for planning and delivery of the radiation therapy. Furthermore, the dosimetry checks carried out by the Radiological Physics Center should be an integral part of this program. In some studies it is necessary to do an initial review of dosimetry factors and portal films. This alerts the radiation oncologist to variations from the protocol and, with prompt feedback and correction of the potential error, will ensure the complete evaluability of the case. Since an increasing number of reports point out that the doses of irradiation delivered and the volume treated may affect therapeutic results, a completed case review should always be carried out. Some cooperative group studies strongly suggest a correlation between the compliance with the protocol and the results of the trial. Costs of these programs in clinical trials should be justified since, for a small investment, the evaluability rate in a protocol can be increased by 10%. The increase of patient evaluability significantly decreases the cost per evaluable patient. Furthermore, the reliability of the data of the trial will be greatly enhanced by a strong quality assurance program.

Quality control of radiotherapy in acute lymphocytic leukemia protocol treatment: experience with 610 cases

Quality assurance programs are necessary in multi-institutional cooperative group clinical trials to ensure that possible inter-institutional differences in selection, treatment and evaluation of patients will not erode the statistical assessment of these clinical trials. The Radiotherapy Committee of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B examined the evaluability and appropriateness of treatment of patients entered into two protocols for childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia, 7411 prior to and 7611 after the development of a quality assurance review program. Of the 348 patients entered into 7411, 37% were evaluable and 26% were appropriately treated in 1974 when the protocol opened. This rose to 53 and 35% in the last year of the study. On the other hand, in 7611 with an ongoing quality assurance program, the evaluability rate initially was 63% and rose to 73% and the appropriateness rate rose from 37 to 61%. This change in performance which was statistically significant at the P = 0.001 level is attributed to the impact of the Quality Assurance Review Center correspondence. Improvement in performance occurred almost entirely in the principal centers and not in satellite institutions. This difference in performance was statistically significant at the P = 0.05 level, indicating that adherence to protocol requirements increases with increased participation in studies.