Quality assurance in radiation oncology

The Importance of Quality Assurance in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

Clinical trials have been the center of progress in modern medicine. In oncology, we are fortunate to have a structure in place through the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). The NCTN provides the infrastructure and a forum for scientific discussion to develop clinical concepts for trial design. The NCTN also provides a network group structure to administer trials for successful trial management and outcome analyses. There are many important aspects to trial design and conduct. Modern trials need to ensure appropriate trial conduct and secure data management processes. Of equal importance is the quality assurance of a clinical trial. If progress is to be made in oncology clinical medicine, investigators and patient care providers of service need to feel secure that trial data is complete, accurate, and well-controlled in order to be confident in trial analysis and move trial outcome results into daily practice. As our technology has matured, so has our need to apply technology in a uniform manner for appropriate interpretation of trial outcomes. In this article, we review the importance of quality assurance in clinical trials involving radiation therapy. We will include important aspects of institution and investigator credentialing for participation as well as ongoing processes to ensure that each trial is being managed in a compliant manner. We will provide examples of the importance of complete datasets to ensure study interpretation. We will describe how successful strategies for quality assurance in the past will support new initiatives moving forward.

Pediatric Non-Rhabdomyosarcoma Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Standard of Care and Treatment Recommendations from the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG)

This paper describes the standard of care for patients with non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas (NRSTS) and the therapeutic recommendations developed by the European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG). NRSTS form a very mixed group of mesenchymal extraskeletal malignancies. Their rarity, heterogeneity, and aggressiveness make the management of children and adolescents with these tumors complex and challenging. The overall cure rate for patients with NRSTS is around 70%, but survival depends on several prognostic variables, such as histotype and tumor grade, extent of disease and stage, tumor size, and tumor site. While surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for most of these tumors, a multimodal therapeutic approach including radiotherapy and chemotherapy is required in many cases. The EpSSG NRSTS 2005 study was the first prospective protocol tailored specifically to NRSTS. Together with the ARST0332 study developed by the North-American Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group (COG), the EpSSG NRSTS 2005 study currently represents the benchmark for these tumors, establishing risk-adapted standards of care. The EpSSG has developed common treatment recommendations for the large group of adult-type NRSTS (including synovial sarcoma), and specific treatment recommendations for other particular adult-type histologies (ie, alveolar soft-part sarcoma, clear cell sarcoma and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans); other highly malignant tumors with a biology and clinical behavior differing from those of adult-type NRSTS (ie, rhabdoid tumors and desmoplastic small round cell tumor); and soft tissue tumors of intermediate malignancy (ie desmoid-type fibromatosis, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors, and infantile fibrosarcoma). New effective drugs are needed for patients whose NRSTS carries the worst prognosis, ie, those with unresectable tumors, metastases at diagnosis, or relapsing disease. Progress in this area relies on our ability to develop international integrated prospective collaborations, both within existing pediatric oncology networks and, importantly, between the communities of specialists treating pediatric and adult sarcoma.

Inter-clinician delineation variation for a new highly-conformal flank target volume in children with renal tumors: A SIOP-Renal Tumor Study Group international multicenter exercise

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Recently, the SIOP-RTSG developed a highly-conformal flank target volume definition for children with renal tumors. The aims of this study were to evaluate the inter-clinician delineation variation of this new target volume definition in an international multicenter setting and to explore the necessity of quality assurance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six pediatric renal cancer cases were transferred to ten radiation oncologists from seven European countries ('participants'). These participants delineated the pre- and postoperative Gross Tumor Volume (GTVpre/post), and Clinical Target Volume (CTV) during two test phases (case 1-2 and 3-4), followed by guideline refinement and a quality assurance phase (case 5-6). Reference target volumes (TVref) were established by three experienced radiation oncologists. The Dice Similarity Coefficient between the reference and participants (DSCref/part) was calculated per case. Delineations of case 5-6 were graded by four independent reviewers as 'per protocol' (0-4 mm), 'minor deviation' (5-9 mm) or 'major deviation' (≥10 mm) from the delineation guideline using 18 standardized criteria. Also, a major deviation resulting in underestimation of the CTVref was regarded as an unacceptable variation.

RESULTS

A total of 57/60 delineation sets were completed. The median DSCref/part for the CTV was 0.55 without improvement after sequential cases (case 3-4 vs. case 5-6: p = 0.15). For case 5-6, a major deviation was found for 5/18, 12/17, 18/18 and 4/9 collected delineations of the GTVpre, GTVpost, CTV-T and CTV-N, respectively. An unacceptable variation from the CTVref was found for 7/9 participants for case 5 and 6/9 participants for case 6.

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter delineation exercise demonstrates that the new consensus for highly-conformal postoperative flank target volume delineation leads to geometrical variation among participants. Moreover, standardized review showed an unacceptable delineation variation in the majority of the participants. These findings strongly suggest the need for additional training and centralized pre-treatment review when this target volume delineation approach is implemented on a larger scale.