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

Radiation Oncology

Damien C Weber⁶  Sandra Collette³  Salvador Villà⁷  Patricia F de Haan²  Christos Melidis³  Coen W Hurkmans⁴  William Straube⁵  Mehtap Coskun¹ 

[1] From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Ankara Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey;From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;From the Departments of Head Quarter, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium;QA Strategic Committee, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium;From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA;From the Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Radiation Oncology, Geneva, CH-1211, Switzerland;From the Departments of Institut Català d’Oncologia, HU Germans Trias, Badalona, Catalonia, Spain

关键词: Individual case review;    Dummy run;    Meningioma;    Quality assurance;    EORTC;    Radiotherapy;   

Others  :  1154683
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-8-23

 received in 2012-12-14, accepted in 2013-01-27,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

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/ webcite) 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.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Coskun et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Weber DC, Lovblad KO, Rogers L: New pathology classification, imagery techniques and prospective trials for meningiomas: the future looks bright. Curr Opin Neurol 2010, 23:563-570.
• [2]Weber DC, Poortmans PM, Hurkmans CW, et al.: Quality assurance for prospective EORTC radiation oncology trials: The challenges of advanced technology in a multicenter international setting. Radiother Oncol 2011, 100(1):150-6.
• [3]ICRU Report 50: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam radiotherapy. Bethesda: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurments; 1993.
• [4]ICRU. Report 62: Prescribing, reporting and recording photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50). Bethesda: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurments; 1999.
• [5]Weber DC, Tomsej M, Melidis C, et al.: QA makes a clinical trial stronger: Evidence-based medicine in radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2012, 105(1):4-8.
• [6]Fabian CJ, Mansfield CM, Dahlberg S, et al.: Low-dose involved field radiation after chemotherapy in advanced hodgkin disease. A southwest oncology group randomized study. Ann Intern Med 1994, 120:903-912.
• [7]Abrams RA, Winter KA, Regine WF, et al.: Failure to adhere to protocol specified radiation therapy guidelines was associated with decreased survival in RTOG 9704-a phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy for patients with resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012, 82:809-816.
• [8]Peters LJ, O’Sullivan B, Giralt J, et al.: Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:2996-3001.
• [9]Aleman BM, Girinsky T, van der Maazen RW, et al.: Quality control of involved-field radiotherapy in patients with advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma (EORTC 20884). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 63:1184-1190.
• [10]Duhmke E, Franklin J, Pfreundschuh M, et al.: Low-dose radiation is sufficient for the noninvolved extended-field treatment in favorable early-stage Hodgkin’s disease: long-term results of a randomized trial of radiotherapy alone. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:2905-2914.
• [11]Fairchild A, Collette L, Hurkmans CW, et al.: Do results of the EORTC dummy run predict quality of radiotherapy delivered within multicentre clinical trials? Eur J Cancer 2012, 48:3232-3239.
• [12]Lomax NJ, Scheib SG: Quantifying the degree of conformity in radiosurgery treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 55:1409-1419.
• [13]Feuvret L, Noel G, Mazeron JJ, et al.: Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64:333-342.
• [14]ICRU Report 83: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam radiotherapy. J ICRU 2010, 10:1-106.
• [15]Musat E, Roelofs E, Bar-Deroma R, et al.: Dummy run and conformity indices in the ongoing EORTC low-grade glioma trial 22033–26033: First evaluation of quality of radiotherapy planning. Radiother Oncol 2010, 95:218-224.
• [16]Knoos T, Kristensen I, Nilsson P: Volumetric and dosimetric evaluation of radiation treatment plans: radiation conformity index. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998, 42:1169-1176.