Do results of the EORTC dummy run predict quality of radiotherapy delivered within multicentre clinical trials?

Dummy run quality assurance study in the Korean Radiation Oncology Group 19 − 09 multi-institutional prospective cohort study of breast cancer

Background

The Korean Radiation Oncology Group (KROG) 19 − 09 prospective cohort study aims to determine the effect of regional nodal irradiation on regional recurrence rates in ypN0 breast cancer patients. Dosimetric variations between radiotherapy (RT) plans of participating institutions may affect the clinical outcome of the study. We performed this study to assess inter-institutional dosimetric variations by dummy run.

Methods

Twelve participating institutions created RT plans for four clinical scenarios using computed tomography images of two dummy cases. Based on a reference structure set, we analyzed dose-volume histograms after collecting the RT plans.

Results

We found variations in dose distribution between institutions, especially in the regional nodal areas. Whole breast and regional nodal irradiation (WBI + RNI) plans had lower inter-institutional agreement and similarity for 95% isodose lines than WBI plans. Fleiss’s kappa values, which were used to measure inter-institutional agreement for the 95% isodose lines, were 0.830 and 0.767 for the large and medium breast WBI plans, respectively, and 0.731 and 0.679 for the large and medium breast WBI + RNI plans, respectively. There were outliers in minimum dose delivered to 95% of the structure (D95%) of axillary level 1 among WBI plans and in D95% of the interpectoral region and axillary level 4 among WBI + RNI plans.

Conclusion

We found inter-institutional and inter-case variations in radiation dose delivered to target volumes and organs at risk. As KROG 19 − 09 is a prospective cohort study, we accepted the dosimetric variation among the different institutions. Actual patient RT plan data should be collected to achieve reliable KROG 19 − 09 study results.

Oligorecurrent nodal prostate cancer: radiotherapy quality assurance of the randomized PEACE V-STORM phase II trial

PURPOSE

Aim of this study is to report the results of the radiotherapy quality assurance program of the PEACE V-STORM randomized phase II trial for pelvic nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A benchmark case (BC) consisting of a postoperative case with 2 nodal recurrences was used for both stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT, 30 Gy/3 fx) and whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT, 45 Gy/25 fx + SIB boost to 65 Gy).

RESULTS

BC of 24 centers were analyzed. The overall grading for delineation variation of the 1st BC was rated as 'UV' (Unacceptable Variation) or 'AV' (Acceptable Variation) for 1 and 7 centers for SBRT (33%), and 3 and 8 centers for WPRT (46%), respectively. An inadequate upper limit of the WPRT CTV (n=2), a missing delineation of the prostate bed (n=1), and a missing nodal target volume (n=1 for SBRT and WPRT) constituted the observed 'UV'. With the 2nd BC (n=11), the overall delineation review showed 2 and 8 'AV' for SBRT and WPRT, respectively, with no 'UV'. For the plan review of the 2nd BC, all treatment plans were per protocol for WPRT. SBRT plans showed variability in dose normalization (Median D_90% = 30.1 Gy, range 22.9-33.2Gy and 30.6 Gy, range 26.8-34.2Gy for nodes 1 and 2 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Up to 46% of protocol deviations were observed in delineation of WPRT for nodal oligorecurrent PCa, while dosimetric results of SBRT showed the greatest disparities between centers. Repeated BC resulted in an improved adherence to the protocol, translating in an overall acceptable contouring and planning compliance rate among participating centers.

The radiotherapy quality assurance gap among phase III cancer clinical trials

PURPOSE

Quality assurance (QA) practices improve the quality level of oncology trials by ensuring that the protocol is followed and the results are valid and reproducible. This study investigated the utilization of QA among randomized controlled trials that involve radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2020 for all phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). These trials were screened for RT-specific RCTs that had published primary trial results. Information regarding QA in each trial was collected from the study publications and trial protocol if available. Two individuals independently performed trial screening and data collection. Pearson's Chi-square tests analyses were used to assess factors that were associated with QA inclusion in RT trials.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs with RT as the primary intervention or as a mandatory component of the protocol were analyzed; the earliest was started in 1994 and one trial was still active though not recruiting. Twenty-nine (69%) trials mandated RT quality assurance (RTQA) practices as part of the trial protocol, with 19 (45%) trials requiring institutional credentialing. Twenty-one (50%) trials published protocol deviation outcomes. Clinical trials involving advanced radiation techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SRS, SBRT) did not include more RTQA than trials without these advanced techniques (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.55). Trials that reported protocol deviation outcomes were associated with mandating RTQA in their protocols as compared to trials that did not report these outcomes (100% vs. 38%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of RTQA utilization and transparency in RT clinical trials. It is imperative for RT trials to include increased QA for safe, consistent, and high-quality RT planning and delivery.

A priori quality assurance using a benchmark case of the randomized phase 2 GORTEC 2014-14 in oligometastatic head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

A Benchmark Case (BC) was performed as part of the quality assurance process of the randomized phase 2 GORTEC 2014-14 OMET study, testing the possibility of multisite stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) alone in oligometastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) as an alternative to systemic treatment and SBRT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Compliance of the investigating centers with the prescription, delineation, planning and evaluation recommendations available in the research protocol was assessed. In addition, classical dosimetric analysis was supplemented by quantitative geometric analysis using conformation indices.

RESULTS

Twenty centers participated in the BC analysis. Among them, four major deviations (MaD) were reported in two centers. Two (10%) centers in MaD had omitted the satellite tumor nodule and secondarily validated after revision. Their respective DICE indexes were 0.37 and 0 and use of extracranial SBRT devices suboptimal There were significant residual heterogeneities between participating centers, including those with a similar SBRT equipment, with impact of plan quality using standard indicators and geometric indices.

CONCLUSION

A priori QA using a BC conditioning the participation of the clinical investigation centers showed deviations from good SBRT practice and led to the exclusion of one out of the twenty participating centers. The majority of centers have demonstrated rigorous compliance with the research protocol. The use of quality indexes adds a complementary approach to improve assessment of plan quality.

Quality assurance of radiotherapy in the ongoing EORTC 1420 "Best of" trial for early stage oropharyngeal, supraglottic and hypopharyngeal carcinoma: results of the benchmark case procedure

INTRODUCTION

The current phase III EORTC 1420 Best-of trial (NCT02984410) compares the swallowing function after transoral surgery versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (RT) in patients with early-stage carcinoma of the oropharynx, supraglottis and hypopharynx. We report the analysis of the Benchmark Case (BC) procedures before patient recruitment with special attention to dysphagia/aspiration related structures (DARS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Submitted RT volumes and plans from participating centers were analyzed and compared against the gold-standard expert delineations and dose distributions. Descriptive analysis of protocol deviations was conducted. Mean Sorensen-Dice similarity index (mDSI) and Hausdorff distance (mHD) were applied to evaluate the inter-observer variability (IOV).

RESULTS

65% (23/35) of the institutions needed more than one submission to achieve Quality assurance (RTQA) clearance. OAR volume delineations were the cause for rejection in 53% (40/76) of cases. IOV could be improved in 5 out of 12 OARs by more than 10 mm after resubmission (mHD). Despite this, final IOV for critical OARs in delineation remained significant among DARS by choosing an aleatory threshold of 0.7 (mDSI) and 15 mm (mHD).

CONCLUSIONS

This is to our knowledge the largest BC analysis among Head and neck RTQA programs performed in the framework of a prospective trial. Benchmarking identified non-common OARs and target delineations errors as the main source of deviations and IOV could be reduced in a significant number of cases after this process. Due to the substantial resources involved with benchmarking, future benchmark analyses should assess fully the impact on patients' clinical outcome.

Brachytherapy quality assurance in the PORTEC-4a trial for molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

The PORTEC-4a trial investigates molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment for endometrial cancer. The quality assurance programme included a dummy run for vaginal brachytherapy prior to site activation, and annual quality assurance to verify protocol adherence. Aims of this study were to evaluate vaginal brachytherapy quality and protocol adherence.

METHODS

For the dummy run, institutes were invited to create a brachytherapy plan on a provided CT-scan with the applicator in situ. For annual quality assurance, institutes provided data of one randomly selected brachytherapy case. A brachytherapy panel reviewed and scored the brachytherapy plans according to a checklist.

RESULTS

At the dummy run, 15 out of 21 (71.4%) institutes needed adjustments of delineation or planning. After adjustments, the mean dose at the vaginal apex (protocol: 100%; 7 Gy) decreased from 100.7% to 99.9% and range and standard deviation (SD) narrowed from 83.6-135.1 to 96.4-101.4 and 8.8 to 1.1, respectively. At annual quality assurance, 22 out of 27 (81.5%) cases had no or minor and 5 out of 27 (18.5%) major deviations. Most deviations were related to delineation, mean dose at the vaginal apex (98.0%, 74.7-114.2, SD 7.6) or reference volume length.

CONCLUSIONS

Most feedback during the brachytherapy quality assurance procedure of the PORTEC-4a trial was related to delineation, dose at the vaginal apex and the reference volume length. Annual quality assurance is essential to promote protocol compliance, ensuring high quality vaginal brachytherapy in all participating institutes.

Quality Assurance of Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy in a Randomized Trial for Locally Advanced Oesophageal cancer

PURPOSE

The ongoing phase 2/3 PRODIGE 26/CONCORDE trial compares chemoradiation therapy with and without dose escalation in patients with locally advanced or unresectable esophageal cancer. The results of a benchmark case procedure are reported here to evaluate the protocol compliance of participating centers as part of quality assurance for radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Volume delineation, target coverage, and dose constraints to the organs at risk (OARs) were assessed on treatment plans of a common benchmark case performed by each participating center. The centers were classified in 3 categories: per protocol, minor acceptable deviation (MiD), or major unacceptable deviation (MaD). A plan was rejected if ≥4 MiDs or 1 MaD were found.

RESULTS

Thirty-5 centers submitted 43 plans. Among them, 14 (32.6%) were per protocol, 19 (44.2%) presented at least 1 MiD, 2 (4.6%) presented at least 1 MaD, and 8 (18.6%) presented both MiD and MaD. Overall, 11 (25.6%) plans were rejected. Only 1 plan was rejected because gross tumor volume was not correctly delineated. The OAR delineation was respected in all cases. Dose constraints to the OARs were respected in the majority of cases except for the heart, where one-third of the plans presented a deviation. As for the target volume, 3 plans (5.8%) had a major underdosage and 1 plan (1.9%) had a major overdosage. Overall, 58% of all treatments were planned with intensity modulated radiation therapy, whereas 42% were planned with 3-dimensional chemoradiation therapy. Significantly more plans in the intensity modulated radiation therapy group were accepted compared with the 3-dimensional chemoradiation therapy group (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The high frequency of protocol deviations underlines the importance of a quality assurance program in clinical trials. Further work should assess the impact of quality assurance for radiation therapy on patient outcomes.

Impact of deviations in target volume delineation - Time for a new RTQA approach?

The international radiotherapy community has recognised that non-adherence to RT protocols can influence trial endpoints. However this conclusion is based on studies predominantly assessing the impact of deviations in dosimetric or treatment delivery protocol parameters rather than target volume delineation (TVD). This review evaluates the assessment of TVD within Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) programmes in clinical trials and the clinical impact of TVD protocol deviations. The implications for RTQA programmes are discussed. MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, OpenGrey, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Full-length articles and conference abstracts were included to avoid publication bias. 5864 abstracts were screened for relevance; 94 full-length articles were reviewed and 5 relevant trials identified. Various classification systems were used to assess protocol deviations; 'unacceptable' or 'major' deviations in TVD occurred in 2.9-13.4% of assessed RT plans (when reported). It was often not possible to establish deviation rates specifically related to TVD as these were frequently combined with other types of protocol deviations. Details on the nature of unacceptable deviations was also not routinely reported and difficulties in establishing a 'consensus' for appropriate TVD for on-trial patients highlighted. Results suggest that deviations in TVD were associated with poorer outcomes for overall survival, local control and treatment-related toxicity; however the data were heterogeneous. RTQA of TVD was retrospective and feedback on the quality of TVD to recruiting centres was not standard. In summary, few trials have published outcomes on the impact of assessing the quality of TVD in trials. We propose that a new approach is now required. Unacceptable TVD deviations must be clearly defined at the time of protocol development to minimise interobserver variation, thereby promoting consistency in RTQA feedback. Prospective TVD reviews should be implemented for trials involving novel or complex RT techniques to identify deviations that require modification prior to treatment delivery. Furthermore, the consistent reporting of RTQA programme outcomes, both within and across trial groups, is of paramount importance to accelerate the evidence-base for the best RTQA approach when assessing TVD and to enable the impact on clinical outcomes within RT trials to be assessed.

A patient safety education program in a medical physics residency

Education in patient safety and quality of care is a requirement for radiation oncology residency programs according to accrediting agencies. However, recent surveys indicate that most programs lack a formal program to support this learning. The aim of this report was to address this gap and share experiences with a structured educational program on quality and safety designed specifically for medical physics therapy residencies. Five key topic areas were identified, drawn from published recommendations on safety and quality. A didactic component was developed, which includes an extensive reading list supported by a series of lectures. This was coupled with practice-based learning which includes one project, for example, failure modes and effect analysis exercise, and also continued participation in the departmental incident learning system including a root-cause analysis exercise. Performance was evaluated through quizzes, presentations, and reports. Over the period of 2014-2016, five medical physics residents successfully completed the program. Evaluations indicated that the residents had a positive experience. In addition to educating physics residents this program may be adapted for medical physics graduate programs or certificate programs, radiation oncology residencies, or as a self-directed educational project for practicing physicists. Future directions might include a system that coordinates between medical training centers such as a resident exchange program.

Multidisciplinary quality assurance and control in oncological trials: Perspectives from European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)

Quality assurance (QA) programmes are one of the mainstays of clinical research and constitute the pillars on which European Organisation for Research Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) delivers multidisciplinary therapeutic progress. Changing practice treatments require solid evidence-based data, which can only be achieved if integral QA is part of the infrastructure sustaining research projects. Cancer treatment is a multimodality approach, which is often applied either in sequence and/or in combination. Each modality plays a key role in cancer control. The modalities by which QA is applied varies substantially within and across the disciplines. In addition, translational and diagnostic disciplines take an increasing role in the era of precision medicine. Building on the structuring effect of clinical research with fully integrated multidisciplinary QA programmes associated with the solutions addressing the chain of custody for biological material and data integrity as well as compliance ensure at the same time validity of clinical research output but also have a training effect on health care providers, who are more likely to apply such principles as routine. The principles of QA are therefore critical to be embedded in multidisciplinary infrastructure to guarantee therapeutic progress. These principles also provide the basis for the functioning of multidisciplinary tumour board. However, technical, operational and economic challenges which go with the implementation of such programmes require optimal know-how and the coordination of the multiple expertise and such efforts are best achieved through centralised infrastructure.

Quality assurance of the PREOPANC trial (2012-003181-40) for preoperative radiochemotherapy in pancreatic cancer : The dummy run

Background

The Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group initiated the national, multicentre, controlled PREOPANC trial, randomising between preoperative radiochemotherapy and direct explorative laparotomy for patients with (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer. The aim of this dummy run is to evaluate compliance with the radiotherapy protocol of this trial, and the quality of delineation and radiation plans.

Methods

Eleven radiation oncology departments open for accrual of patients in the PREOPANC trial were provided with all necessary information of a selected ‘dummy’ patient. Each institute was asked to delineate the target volumes, including gross tumour volume, internal gross tumour volume (iGTV), internal clinical target volume, and planning target volume. The institutions were also asked to provide a radiation treatment plan in accordance with the PREOPANC trial protocol.

Results

The range of the iGTV was 19.3–77.2 cm³ with a mean iGTV of 41.5 cm³ (standard deviation 14.8 cm³). Nine institutions made a treatment plan using an arc technique for treatment delivery, one an intensity modulated technique and one a 3-field conformal technique. All institutions reached the prescribed target coverage, without exceeding the organs at risk constraints. The institution with the 3‑field conformal technique was advised to use a more sophisticated technique (e. g. volumetric modulated arc therapy) to reduce the dose to the spinal cord.

Conclusion

All institutions showed acceptable deviations from the PREOPANC trial protocol and achieved an acceptable quality of delineation and radiation technique. All institutions were allowed to continue participation in the PREOPANC trial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00066-017-1153-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Supplementary material: PREOPANC Protocol, version 11, radiotherapy part

Delineation of the Prostate Bed: The "Invisible Target" Is Still an Issue?

For pathological high-risk prostate cancer, adjuvant irradiation has shown a survival benefit. Phase III studies have highlighted that half men would face biochemical relapse and would be candidate for radiotherapy at adjuvant or salvage times. Despite at least four published international contouring guidelines from different collaborative groups, discrepancies remain for volumes, delineation, and margins to be considered in order to optimize radiotherapy planning. This article from “Groupe d’Etude des Tumeurs UroGénitales (GETUG)” members will focus on controversies to help clinicians to create best volume delineation for adjuvant or salvage post prostatectomy radiotherapy.

Quality assurance of radiotherapy in the ongoing EORTC 1219-DAHANCA-29 trial for HPV/p16 negative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Results of the benchmark case procedure

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The phase III EORTC 1219-DAHANCA 29 intergroup trial evaluates the influence of nimorazole in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer when treated with accelerated radiotherapy (RT) in combination with chemotherapy. This article describes the results of the RT Benchmark Case (BC) performed before patient inclusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The participating centers were asked to perform a 2-step BC, consisting of (1) a delineation and (2) a planning exercise according to the protocol guidelines. Submissions were prospectively centrally reviewed and feedback was given to the submitting centers. Sørensen-Dice similarity index (DSI) and the 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD) were retrospectively used to evaluate the agreement between the centers and the expert contours.

RESULTS

Fifty-four submissions (34 delineation and 20 planning exercises) from 19 centers were reviewed. Nine (47%) centers needed to perform the delineation step twice and three (16%) centers 3 times before receiving an approval. An increase in DSI-value and a decrease in HD, in particular for the prophylactic Clinical Target Volume (pCTV), could be found for the resubmitted cases. No unacceptable variations could be found for the planning exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

These BC-results highlight the need for effective and prospective RTQA in clinical trials. Even with clearly defined protocol guidelines, delineation and not planning remain the main reason for unacceptable protocol variations. The introduction of more objective quantitative analysis methods, such as the HD and DSI, in future trials might strengthen the evaluation by experts.

Prospective review of radiotherapy trials through implementation of standardized multicentre workflow and IT infrastructure

OBJECTIVE:

We sought to develop a process that would allow us to perform a prospective review of outlining in trials using expert reviewers based in multiple centres.

METHODS:

We implemented a specific information technology infrastructure and workflow that could serve all organizations involved in the radiotherapy quality assurance (RTQA) process.

RESULTS:

Data were processed and packaged in the computational environment for radiotherapy research (CERR) binary format and securely transmitted to the expert reviewer at the designated remote organization. It was opened and reviewed using the distributed CERR-compiled application, and a standardized report was sent to the respective centre. Centres were expected to correct any unacceptable deviations and resubmit outlining for approval prior to commencing treatment. 75% of reviews were completed and fed back to centres within 3 working days. There were no delays in treatment start date.

CONCLUSION:

Our distributed RTQA review approach provides a method of prospective outlining review at multiple centres, without compromising the quality, delaying the start of treatment or the need for significant additional infrastructure resources. Future progress in the area of prospective individual case review will need to be supported by additional resources for clinician time to undertake the reviews.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:

Trial groups around the world have formulated different approaches to address the need for the prospective review of radiotherapy (RT) data with clinical trials, in line with available resources. We report a UK solution that has allowed the workload for outlining review to be distributed across a wider group of volunteer reviewers without the need for any additional infrastructure costs and has already been adopted within the UK RT trials community.

Results of the Australasian (Trans-Tasman Oncology Group) radiotherapy benchmarking exercise in preparation for participation in the PORTEC-3 trial

INTRODUCTION

Protocol deviations in Randomised Controlled Trials have been found to result in a significant decrease in survival and local control. In some cases, the magnitude of the detrimental effect can be larger than the anticipated benefits of the interventions involved. The implementation of appropriate quality assurance of radiotherapy measures for clinical trials has been found to result in fewer deviations from protocol. This paper reports on a benchmarking study conducted in preparation for the PORTEC-3 trial in Australasia.

METHODS

A benchmarking CT dataset was sent to each of the Australasian investigators, it was requested they contour and plan the case according to trial protocol using local treatment planning systems. These data was then sent back to Trans-Tasman Oncology Group for collation and analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty three investigators from eighteen institutions across Australia and New Zealand took part in the study. The mean clinical target volume (CTV) volume was 383.4 (228.5-497.8) cm(3) and the mean dose to a reference gold standard CTV was 48.8 (46.4-50.3) Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were some large differences in the contouring of the CTV and its constituent parts, these did not translate into large variations in dosimetry. Where individual investigators had deviations from the trial contouring protocol, feedback was provided. The results of this study will be used to compare with the international study QA for the PORTEC-3 trial.

Quality assurance for the EORTC 22071-26071 study: dummy run prospective analysis

Purpose

The phase III 22071–26071 trial was designed to evaluate the addition of panitumumab to adjuvant chemotherapy plus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in locally advanced resected squamous cell head and neck cancer. We report the results of the dummy run (DR) performed to detect deviations from protocol guidelines.

Methods and Materials

DR datasets consisting of target volumes, organs at risk (OAR) and treatment plans were digitally uploaded, then compared with reference contours and protocol guidelines by six central reviewers. Summary statistics and analyses of potential correlations between delineations and plan characteristics were performed.

Results

Of 23 datasets, 20 (87.0%) GTVs were evaluated as acceptable/borderline, along with 13 (56.5%) CTVs and 10 (43.5%) PTVs. All PTV dose requirements were met by 73.9% of cases. Dose constraints were met for 65.2-100% of mandatory OARs. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the subjective acceptability of contours and the ability to meet dose constraints for all OARs (p ≤ 0.01) except for the parotids and spinal cord. Ipsilateral parotid doses correlated significantly with CTV and PTV volumes (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusions

The observed wide variations in treatment planning, despite strict guidelines, confirms the complexity of development and quality assurance of IMRT-based multicentre studies for head and neck cancer.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-014-0248-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Outcome impact and cost-effectiveness of quality assurance for radiotherapy planned for the EORTC 22071-24071 prospective study for head and neck cancer

INTRODUCTION

One of the goals of Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy (QART) is to reduce the variability and uncertainties related to treatment planning and beam delivery. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome impact and cost-effectiveness (CE) of various QART levels for a head and neck (H&N) cancer study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

QART levels were defined as: basic QART with a dummy run (level 2), level 2 plus prospective Individual Case Reviews (ICRs) for 15% of patients (level 3) and level 2 plus prospective ICRs for all patients (level 4). The follow-up of patients was modeled using a multi-state model with parameters derived from EORTC, TROG and RTOG prospective studies. Individual patient data, linking QART results with outcome, were retrieved from the TROG database. Results for each QART level were expressed as percentage of mortality and local failure at 5 years.

RESULTS

Quality-of-life-adjusted and recurrence-free survival increased with increasing QART levels. The increase of all these metrics was more sizeable with an increased QART level from 2 or 3 to 4. The estimated quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) for an increase of QART levels of 3-4 and 2-4 were 0.09 and 0.15, respectively. The incremental CE ratio was €5525 and €3659 Euros per QALY for these QART levels. Compared to QART level 2 or 3, level 4 was cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing QART levels resulted in better patient outcome in this simulated study. The increased complexity of the QART program was also cost-effective.

[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.

Clinical and technological transition in breast cancer

This article is a summary of the conference "Clinical and technological transition in breast cancer" that took place in the Congress of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology, placed in Vigo (Spain) on June 21, 2013. Hugo Marsiglia and Philip Poortmanns were the speakers, the first discussed about "Clinical and technological transition" and the second about "EORTC clinical trials and protocols".

Prostate radiotherapy clinical trial quality assurance: how real should real time review be? (A TROG-OCOG Intergroup Project)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Review of plans early in treatment offers the potential to reduce the chance of sub-optimal treatment delivery. We compare the use of real time reviews (RTR) either before randomization (pre-rand 3D RTR) or following randomization (post-rand 2D RTR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PROFIT is an international randomised trial for men with prostate cancer which had credentialing via multiple dummy runs. In Australia, but not Canada, all plans were submitted for pre-rand 3D RTR using 3D software, and resubmission was requested if significant protocol deviations (PD) were seen. All plans from Canada and Australia then underwent post-rand 2D RTR using a 2D assessment.

RESULTS

For 147 Australian patients, pre-rand 3D RTR was fast (median 1 day, 95% range 0-4 days). 51 minor and 5 major PD were observed and 15 of the 147 cases (10%) required resubmission. Of the 5 major PD, 4 were remedied on resubmission and 1 was withdrawn from study. For the post-rand 2D RTR, reports from 147 Australian cases and 193 Canadian cases were reviewed. No major PD were reported from Australian cases, but 3 were seen in Canadian cases (0% versus 1.5%; p=0.26). There was also no difference in the rate of minor PD (14.3% versus 15.3%; p=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

In a study using relatively simple treatment volumes after comprehensive credentialing, pre-rand 3D RTR offers only modest benefits compared with post-rand 2D RTR. In the future the intensity of RTR may need to vary according to protocol and site specific factors.

Does quality of radiation therapy predict outcomes of multicenter cooperative group trials? A literature review

Central review of radiation therapy (RT) delivery within multicenter clinical trials was initiated in the early 1970s in the United States. Early quality assurance publications often focused on metrics related to process, logistics, and timing. Our objective was to review the available evidence supporting correlation of RT quality with clinical outcomes within cooperative group trials. A MEDLINE search was performed to identify multicenter studies that described central subjective assessment of RT protocol compliance (quality). Data abstracted included method of central review, definition of deviations, and clinical outcomes. Seventeen multicenter studies (1980-2012) were identified, plus one Patterns of Care Study. Disease sites were hematologic, head and neck, lung, breast, and pancreas. Between 0 and 97% of treatment plans received an overall grade of acceptable. In 7 trials, failure rates were significantly higher after inadequate versus adequate RT. Five of 9 and 2 of 5 trials reported significantly worse overall and progression-free survival after poor-quality RT, respectively. One reported a significant correlation, and 2 reported nonsignificant trends toward increased toxicity with noncompliant RT. Although more data are required, protocol-compliant RT may decrease failure rates and increase overall survival and likely contributes to the ability of collected data to answer the central trial question.

Quality assurance of radiotherapy in the ongoing EORTC 22042-26042 trial for atypical and malignant meningioma: results from the dummy runs and prospective individual case Reviews

BACKGROUND

The ongoing EORTC 22042-26042 trial evaluates the efficacy of high-dose radiotherapy (RT) in atypical/malignant meningioma. The results of the Dummy Run (DR) and prospective Individual Case Review (ICR) were analyzed in this Quality Assurance (QA) study.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Institutions were requested to submit a protocol compliant treatment plan for the DR and ICR, respectively. DR-plans (n=12) and ICR-plans (n=50) were uploaded to the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center of Advanced Technology Consortium server (http://atc.wustl.edu/) and were assessed prospectively.

RESULTS

Major deviations were observed in 25% (n=3) of DR-plans while no minor deviations were observed. Major and minor deviations were observed in 22% (n=11) and 10% (n=5) of the ICR-plans, respectively. Eighteen% of ICRs could not be analyzed prospectively, as a result of corrupted or late data submission. CTV to PTV margins were respected in all cases. Deviations were negatively associated with the number of submitted cases per institution (p=0.0013), with a cutoff of 5 patients per institutions. No association (p=0.12) was observed between DR and ICR results, suggesting that DR's results did not predict for an improved QA process in accrued brain tumor patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of protocol deviations were observed in this prospective QA study. The number of cases accrued per institution was a significant determinant for protocol deviation. These data suggest that successful DR is not a guarantee for protocol compliance for accrued patients. Prospective ICRs should be performed to prevent protocol deviations.