Dummy-run for standardizing plan quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for postoperative uterine cervical cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study (JCOG1402)

Radiotherapy trial quality assurance processes: a systematic review

Quality assurance remains a neglected component of many trials, particularly for technical interventions, such as surgery and radiotherapy, for which quality of treatment is an important component in defining outcomes. We aimed to evaluate evidence for the processes used in radiotherapy quality assurance of clinical trials. A systematic review was undertaken focusing on use of a pre-trial outlining benchmark case and subsequent on-trial individual case reviews of outlining for recruited patients. These pre-trial and on-trial checks are used to ensure consistency and standardisation of treatment for each patient recruited to the trial by confirming protocol compliance. Non-adherence to the trial protocol has been shown to have a negative effect on trial outcomes. 29 studies published between January, 2000, and December, 2022, were identified that reported on either outlining benchmark case results or outlining individual case review results, or both. The trials identified varied in their use of radiotherapy quality assurance practices and reporting of outcomes was inconsistent. Deviations from trial protocols were frequent, particularly regarding outlining. Studies correlating benchmark case results with on-trial individual case reviews provided mixed results, meaning firm conclusions could not be drawn regarding the influence of the pre-trial benchmark case on subsequent on-trial performance. The optimal radiotherapy quality assurance processes were unclear, and there was little evidence available. Improved reporting of outcomes from radiotherapy quality assurance programmes is needed to develop an evidence base for the optimal approach to radiotherapy quality assurance in trials.

Plan complexity metrics for head and neck VMAT competition plans

Previous plan competitions have largely focused on dose metric assessments. However, whether the submitted plans were realistic and reasonable from a quality assurance (QA) perspective remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between aperture-based plan complexity metrics (PCM) in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) competition plans and clinical treatment plans verified through patient-specific QA (PSQA). In addition, the association of PCMs with plan quality was examined. A head and neck (HN) plan competition was held for Japanese institutions from June 2019 to July 2019, in which 210 competition plans were submitted. Dose distribution quality was quantified based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics by calculating the dose distribution plan score (DDPS). Differences in PCMs between the two VMAT treatment plan groups (HN plan competitions held in Japan and clinically accepted HN VMAT plans through PSQA) were investigated. The mean (± standard deviation) DDPS for the 98 HN competition plans was 158.5 ± 20.6 (maximum DDPS: 200). DDPS showed a weak correlation with PCMs with a maximum r of 0.45 for monitor unit (MU); its correlation with some PCMs was "very weak." Significant differences were found in some PCMs between plans with the highest 20% DDPSs and the remaining plans. The clinical VMAT and competition plans revealed similar distributions for some PCMs. Deviations in PCMs for the two groups were comparable, indicating considerable variability among planners regarding planning skills. The plan complexity for HN VMAT competition plans increased for high-quality plans, as shown by the dose distribution. Direct comparison of PCMs between competition plans and clinically accepted plans showed that the submitted HN VMAT competition plans were realistic and reasonable from the QA perspective. This evaluation may provide a set of criteria for evaluating plan quality in plan competitions.

Quality assurance in a phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of POstmastectomy radioThErapy in Node posiTive breast cancer with or without Internal mAmmary nodaL irradiation (POTENTIAL): a planning benchmark case

PURPOSE

To report the planning benchmark case results of the POTENTIAL trial-a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial-to evaluate the value of internal mammary nodal (IMN) irradiation for patients with high-risk breast cancer.

METHODS

All participating institutions were provided the outlines of one benchmark case, and they generated radiation therapy plans per protocol. The plans were evaluated by a quality assurance team, after which the institutions resubmitted their revised plans. The information on beams arrangement, skin flash, inhomogeneity corrections, and protocol compliance was assessed in the first and final submission.

RESULTS

The plans from 26 institutions were analyzed. Some major deviations were found in the first submission. The protocol compliance rates of dose coverage for the planning target volume of chest wall, supraclavicular fossa plus axilla, and IMN region (PTVim) were all significantly improved in the final submission, which were 96.2% vs. 69.2%, 100% vs. 76.9%, and 88.4% vs. 53.8%, respectively. For OARs, the compliance rates of heart Dmean, left anterior descending coronary artery V40Gy, ipsilateral lung V5Gy, and stomach V5Gy were significantly improved. In the first and final submission, the mean values of PTVim V100% were 79.9% vs. 92.7%; the mean values of heart Dmean were 11.5 Gy vs. 9.7 Gy for hypofractionated radiation therapy and 11.5 Gy vs. 11.0 Gy for conventional fractionated radiation therapy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The major deviations were corrected and protocol compliance was significantly improved after revision, which highlighted the importance of planning benchmark case to guarantee the planning quality for multicenter trials.

A virtual audit system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy credentialing in Japan Clinical Oncology Group clinical trials: A pilot study

PURPOSE

The Medical Physics Working Group of the Radiation Therapy Study Group at the Japan Clinical Oncology Group is currently developing a virtual audit system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy dosimetry credentialing. The target dosimeters include films and array detectors, such as ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, Florida, USA) and Delta4 (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden). This pilot study investigated the feasibility of our virtual audit system using previously acquired data.

METHODS

We analyzed 46 films (32 and 14 in the axial and coronal planes, respectively) from 29 institutions. Global gamma analysis between measured and planned dose distributions used the following settings: 3%/3 mm criteria (the dose denominator was 2 Gy), 30% threshold dose, no scaling of the datasets, and 90% tolerance level. In addition, 21 datasets from nine institutions were obtained for array evaluation. Five institutions used ArcCHECK, while the others used Delta4. Global gamma analysis was performed with 3%/2 mm criteria (the dose denominator was the maximum calculated dose), 10% threshold dose, and 95% tolerance level. The film calibration and gamma analysis were conducted with in-house software developed using Python (version 3.9.2).

RESULTS

The means ± standard deviations of the gamma passing rates were 99.4 ± 1.5% (range, 92.8%-100%) and 99.2 ± 1.0% (range, 97.0%-100%) in the film and array evaluations, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of virtual audits. The proposed virtual audit system will contribute to more efficient, cheaper, and more rapid trial credentialing than on-site and postal audits; however, the limitations should be considered when operating our virtual audit system.

Plan quality association between dummy run and individual case review in a prospective multi-institutional clinical trial of postoperative cervical cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study (JCOG1402)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 1402 conducted a multicenter clinical trial of postoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for high-risk uterine cervical cancer patients. We assess effectiveness of the quality assurance (QA) program in central review through dummy runs (DRs) performed before patient enrollment and post-treatment individual case review (ICR), and clarify the pitfalls in treatment planning.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The ICRs were conducted using the same QA program as the DR for 214 plans. The deviations were compared with those demonstrated in the DRs, and the pitfalls were clarified. Fifteen face-to-face meetings were held with physicians at participating institutions to provide feedback.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and eighty-nine deviations and nine violations were detected in the 214 plans. The patterns of the deviations observed in the ICRs were similar to that in the DR. Frequent deviations were observed in clinical target volume (CTV) delineations, 50% in the DRs and 35% in the ICRs, respectively. In the ICRs, approximately 1.4 deviations/violations were observed per plan, which was lower than DR. Nine violations included inaccurate CTV delineation and improper PTV (planning target volume) margin, which had risks in loco-regional failures by inadequate dose coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Our developed QA program commonly used in DR and ICR clarified the pitfalls in treatment plans. Although the frequent deviations in CTV delineations were observed in the ICR, the deviations decreased compared to that in the DR. More specified face-to-face meetings with participating institutions will be necessary to maintain the quality of IMRT in the clinical protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japanese Clinical Trial Registry #: UMIN000027017 at https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000030672;language=J.

Radiotherapy Quality Assurance in the PORTEC-3 (TROG 08.04) Trial

AIMS

Quality assurance in radiotherapy (QART) is essential to ensure the scientific integrity of a clinical trial. This paper reports the findings of the retrospective QART assessment for all centres that participated in PORTEC-3; a randomised controlled trial that compared pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy to the pelvis followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The trial showed an overall survival benefit for the addition of the chemotherapy in the management of women with high-risk endometrial cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinicians were invited to upload a randomly selected case/s treated at each of the participating sites. Panel reviewers analysed the contours to certify that the target volumes and organ at risk structures were contoured according to guidelines. The results were categorised into acceptable, minor variation, major variation or unevaluable. The radiotherapy plans were dosimetrically evaluated using the well-established Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) protocol.

RESULTS

Between August 2010 and January 2018, data from 146 patients of 686 consecutively treated patients were retrospectively reviewed. All 16 Australia and New Zealand and 71 of 77 international centres uploaded data for evaluation. In total, 3514 dosimetric and contour variables were reviewed. Of these, 3136 variables were deemed acceptable (89.2%), with 335 minor (9.6%) and 43 major variations (1.2%). Major contour variations included the clinical target volume vaginal vault, clinical target volume parametria and differential planning target volume vault expansion.

CONCLUSION

The results of the QART assessment confirmed high uniformity and low rates of both minor and major deviations in contouring and dosimetry in all sites. This supports the safe introduction of the PORTEC-3 treatment protocol into routine clinical practice.

An overview of the medical-physics-related verification system for radiotherapy multicenter clinical trials by the Medical Physics Working Group in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group-Radiation Therapy Study Group

The Japan Clinical Oncology Group-Radiation Therapy Study Group (JCOG-RTSG) has initiated several multicenter clinical trials for high-precision radiotherapy, which are presently ongoing. When conducting multi-center clinical trials, a large difference in physical quantities, such as the absolute doses to the target and the organ at risk, as well as the irradiation localization accuracy, affects the treatment outcome. Therefore, the differences in the various physical quantities used in different institutions must be within an acceptable range for conducting multicenter clinical trials, and this must be verified with medical physics consideration. In 2011, Japan's first Medical Physics Working Group (MPWG) in the JCOG-RTSG was established to perform this medical-physics-related verification for multicenter clinical trials. We have developed an auditing method to verify the accuracy of the absolute dose and the irradiation localization. Subsequently, we credentialed the participating institutions in the JCOG multicenter clinical trials that were using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lungs, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for several disease sites, and proton beam therapy (PT) for the liver. From the verification results, accuracies of the absolute dose and the irradiation localization among the participating institutions of the multicenter clinical trial were assured, and the JCOG clinical trials could be initiated.