Quality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample size in randomized clinical trials

Deep learning-based synthetic CT for dosimetric monitoring of combined conventional radiotherapy and lattice boost in large lung tumors

PURPOSE

Conventional radiotherapy (CRT) has limited local control and poses a high risk of severe toxicity in large lung tumors. This study aimed to develop an integrated treatment plan that combines CRT with lattice boost radiotherapy (LRT) and monitors its dosimetric characteristics.

METHODS

This study employed cone-beam computed tomography from 115 lung cancer patients to develop a U-Net +  + deep learning model for generating synthetic CT (sCT). The clinical feasibility of sCT was thoroughly evaluated in terms of image clarity, Hounsfield Unit (HU) consistency, and computational accuracy. For large lung tumors, accumulated doses to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs at risk (OARs) during 20 fractions of CRT were precisely monitored using matrices derived from the deformable registration of sCT and planning CT (pCT). Additionally, for patients with minimal tumor shrinkage during CRT, an sCT-based adaptive LRT boost plan was introduced, with its dosimetric properties, treatment safety in high dose regions, and delivery accuracy quantitatively assessed.

RESULTS

The image quality and HU consistency of sCT improved significantly, with dose deviations ranging from 0.15% to 1.25%. These results indicated that sCT is feasible for inter-fraction dose monitoring and adaptive planning. After rigid and hybrid deformable registration of sCT and pCT, the mean distance-to-agreement was 0.80 ± 0.18 mm, and the mean Dice similarity coefficient was 0.97 ± 0.01. Monitoring dose accumulation over 20 CRT fractions showed an increase in high-dose regions of the GTV (P < 0.05) and a reduction in low-dose regions (P < 0.05). Dosimetric parameters of all OARs were significantly higher than those in the original treatment plan (P < 0.01). The sCT based adaptive LRT boost plan, when combined with CRT, significantly reduced the dose to OARs compared to CRT alone (P < 0.05). In LRT plan, high-dose regions for the GTV and D95% exhibited displacements greater than 5 mm from the tumor boundary in 19 randomly scanned sCT sequences under free breathing conditions. Validation of dose delivery using TLD phantom measurements showed that more than half of the dose points in the sCT based LRT plan had deviations below 2%, with a maximum deviation of 5.89%.

CONCLUSIONS

The sCT generated by the U-Net +  + model enhanced the accuracy of monitoring the actual accumulated dose, thereby facilitating the evaluation of therapeutic efficacy and toxicity. Additionally, the sCT-based LRT boost plan, combined with CRT, further minimized the dose delivered to OARs while ensuring safe and precise treatment delivery.

Daily CBCT-based dose calculations for enhancing the safety of dose-escalation in lung cancer radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Dose-escalation in lung cancer comes with a high risk of severe toxicity. This study aimed to calculate the delivered dose in a Scandinavian phase-III dose-escalation trial.

METHODS

The delivered dose was evaluated for 21 locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) patients treated as part of the NARLAL2 dose-escalation trial. The patients were randomized between standard and escalated heterogeneous dose-delivery. Both treatment plans were created and approved before randomization. Daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) for patient positioning, and adaptive radiotherapy were mandatory. Standard and escalated plans, including adaptive re-plans, were recalculated on each daily CBCT and accumulated on the planning CT for each patient. Dose to the clinical target volume (CTV), organs at risk (OAR), and the effects of plan adaptions were evaluated for the accumulated dose and on each treated fraction scaled to full treatment.

RESULTS

For the standard treatment, plan adaptations reduced the number of patients with CTV-T underdosage from six to one, and the total number of fractions with CTV-T underdosage from 161 to 56; while for the escalated treatment, the number of patients was reduced from five to zero and number of fractions from 81 to 11. For dose-escalation, three patients had fractions exceeding trial constraints for heart, bronchi, or esophagus, and one had an accumulated heart dose above the constraints.

CONCLUSION

Dose-escalation for LA-NSCLC patients, using daily image guidance and adaptive radiotherapy, is dosimetrically safe for the majority of patients. Dose calculation on daily CBCTs is an efficient tool to monitor target coverage and OAR doses.

The role of medical physics experts in clinical trials: A guideline from the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics

The EFOMP working group on the Role of Medical Physics Experts (MPEs) in Clinical Trials was established in 2010, with experts from across Europe and different areas of medical physics. Their main aims were: (1) To develop a consensus guidance document for the work MPEs do in clinical trials across Europe. (2) Complement the work by American colleagues in AAPM TG 113 and guidance from National Member Organisations. (3) To cover external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, nuclear medicine, molecular radiotherapy, and imaging. This document outlines the main output from this working group. Giving guidance to MPEs, and indeed all Medical Physicists (MP) and MP trainees wishing to work in clinical trials. It also gives guidance to the wider multidisciplinary team, advising where MPEs must legally be involved, as well as highlighting areas where MPEs skills and expertise can really add value to clinical trials.

Analysis of Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in NRG Oncology RTOG 0848

PURPOSE

NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0848 is a 2-step randomized trial to evaluate the benefit of the addition of concurrent fluoropyrimidine and radiation therapy (RT) after adjuvant chemotherapy (second step) for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Real-time quality assurance (QA) was performed on each patient who underwent RT. This analysis aims to evaluate adherence to protocol-specified contouring and treatment planning and to report the types and frequencies of deviations requiring revisions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In addition to a web-based contouring atlas, the protocol outlined step-by-step instructions for generating the clinical treatment volume through the creation of specific regions of interest. The planning target volume was a uniform 0.5 cm clinical treatment volume expansion. One of 2 radiation oncology study chairs independently reviewed each plan. Plans with unacceptable deviations were returned for revision and resubmitted until approved. Treatment started after final approval of the RT plan.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2018, 354 patients were enrolled in the second randomization. Of these, 160 patients received RT and were included in the QA analysis. Resubmissions were more common for patients planned with 3-dimensional conformal RT (43%) than with intensity modulated RT (31%). In total, at least 1 resubmission of the treatment plan was required for 33% of patients. Among patients requiring resubmission, most only needed 1 resubmission (87%). The most common reasons for resubmission were unacceptable deviations with respect to the preoperative gross target volume (60.7%) and the pancreaticojejunostomy (47.5%).

CONCLUSION

One-third of patients required resubmission to meet protocol compliance criteria, demonstrating the continued need for expending resources on real-time, pretreatment QA in trials evaluating the use of RT, particularly for pancreas cancer. Rigorous QA is critically important for clinical trials involving RT to ensure that the true effect of RT is assessed. Moreover, RT QA serves as an educational process through providing feedback from specialists to practicing radiation oncologists on best practices.

The Feasibility of Quality Assurance in the TOPGEAR International Phase 3 Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy for Gastric Cancer (an Intergroup Trial of the AGITG/TROG/NHMRC CTC/EORTC/CCTG)

PURPOSE

The TOPGEAR phase 3 trial hypothesized that adding preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) to perioperative chemotherapy will improve survival in patients with gastric cancer. Owing to the complexity of gastric irradiation, a comprehensive radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) program was implemented. Our objective is to describe the RTQA methods and outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

RTQA was undertaken in real time before treatment for the first 5 patients randomized to CRT from each center. Once acceptable quality was achieved, RTQA was completed for one-third of subsequent cases. RTQA consisted of evaluating (1) clinical target volume and organ-at-risk contouring and (2) radiation therapy planning parameters. Protocol violations between high- (20+ patients enrolled) and low-volume centers were compared using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

TOPGEAR enrolled 574 patients, of whom 286 were randomized to receive preoperative CRT and 203 (71%) were included for RTQA. Of these, 67 (33%) and 136 (67%) patients were from high- and low-volume centers, respectively. The initial RTQA pass rate was 72%. In total, 28% of cases required resubmission. In total, 200 of 203 cases (99%) passed RTQA before treatment. Cases from low-volume centers required resubmission more often (44/136 [33%] vs 13/67 [18%]; P = .078). There was no change in the proportion of cases requiring resubmission over time. Most cases requiring resubmission had multiple protocol violations. At least 1 aspect of the clinical target volume had to be adjusted in all cases. Inadequate coverage of the duodenum was most common (53% major violation, 25% minor violation). For the remaining cases, the resubmission process was triggered secondary to poor contour/plan quality.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large multicenter trial, RTQA is feasible and effective in achieving high-quality treatment plans. Ongoing education should be performed to ensure consistent quality during the entire study period.

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.

Impact of delineation errors on the estimated organ at risk dose and of dose errors on the normal tissue complication probability model

BACKGROUND

Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models are often based on doses retrieved from delineated volumes. For retrospective dose-response studies focusing on organs that have not been delineated historically, automatic segmentation might be considered. However, automatic segmentation risks generating considerable delineation errors and knowledge regarding how these errors impact the estimated organ dose is important. Furthermore, organ-at-risk (OAR) dose uncertainties cannot be eliminated and might affect the resulting NTCP model. Therefore, it is also of interest to study how OAR dose errors impact the NTCP modeling results.

PURPOSE

To investigate how random delineation errors of the proximal bronchial tree, heart, and esophagus impact the estimated OAR dose, and to investigate how random errors in the doses used for dose-response modeling affect the estimated NTCPs.

METHODS

We investigated the impact of random delineation errors on the estimated OAR dose using the treatment plans of 39 patients treated with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy of non-small-cell lung cancer. Study-specific reference structures were defined by manually contouring the proximal bronchial tree, heart and esophagus. For each patient and organ, 120 reshaped structures were created by introducing random shifts and margins to the entire reference structure. The mean and near-maximum dose to the reference and reshaped structures were compared. In a separate investigation, the impact of random dose errors on the NTCP model was studied performing dose-response modeling with study sets containing treatment outcomes and OAR doses with and without introduced errors. Universal patient populations with defined population risks, dose-response relationships and distributions of OAR doses were used as ground truth. From such a universal population, we randomly sampled data sets consisting of OAR dose and treatment outcome into reference populations. Study sets of different sizes were created by repeatedly introducing errors to the OAR doses of each reference population. The NTCP models generated with dose errors were compared to the reference NTCP model of the corresponding reference population.

RESULTS

A total of 14 040 reshaped structures with random delineation errors were created. The delineation errors resulted in systematic mean dose errors of less than 1% of the prescribed dose (PD). Mean dose differences above 15% of PD and near-maximum doses differences above 25% of PD were observed for 211 and 457 reshaped structures, respectively. Introducing random errors to OAR doses used for dose-response modeling resulted in systematic underestimations of the median NTCP. For all investigated scenarios, the median differences in NTCP were within 0.1 percentage points (p.p.) when comparing different study sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing random delineation errors to the proximal bronchial tree, heart and esophagus resulted in mean dose and near-maximum dose differences above 15% and 25% of PD, respectively. We did not observe an association between the dose level and the magnitude of the dose errors. For the scenarios investigated in this study, introducing random errors to OAR doses used for dose-response modeling resulted in systematic underestimations of the median NTCP for reference risks higher than the universal population risk. The median NTCP underestimation was similar for different study sizes, all within 0.1 p.p.

Quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials

Clinical trials have become the primary mechanism to validate process improvements in oncology clinical practice. Over the past two decades there have been considerable process improvements in the practice of radiation oncology within the structure of a modern department using advanced technology for patient care. Treatment planning is accomplished with volume definition including fusion of multiple series of diagnostic images into volumetric planning studies to optimize the definition of tumor and define the relationship of tumor to normal tissue. Daily treatment is validated by multiple tools of image guidance. Computer planning has been optimized and supported by the increasing use of artificial intelligence in treatment planning. Informatics technology has improved, and departments have become geographically transparent integrated through informatics bridges creating an economy of scale for the planning and execution of advanced technology radiation therapy. This serves to provide consistency in department habits and improve quality of patient care. Improvements in normal tissue sparing have further improved tolerance of treatment and allowed radiation oncologists to increase both daily and total dose to target. Radiation oncologists need to define a priori dose volume constraints to normal tissue as well as define how image guidance will be applied to each radiation treatment. These process improvements have enhanced the utility of radiation therapy in patient care and have made radiation therapy an attractive option for care in multiple primary disease settings. In this chapter we review how these changes have been applied to clinical practice and incorporated into clinical trials. We will discuss how the changes in clinical practice have improved the quality of clinical trials in radiation therapy. We will also identify what gaps remain and need to be addressed to offer further improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials and patient care.

Prioritizing clinical trial quality assurance for photons and protons: A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) comparison

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Global Clinical Trials RTQA Harmonization Group (GHG) set out to evaluate and prioritize clinical trial quality assurance.

METHODS

The GHG compiled a list of radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) tests performed for proton and photon therapy clinical trials. These tests were compared between modalities to assess whether there was a need for different types of assessments per modality. A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was performed to assess the risk of each QA failure.

RESULTS

The risk analysis showed that proton and photon therapy shared four out of five of their highest-risk failures (end-to-end anthropomorphic phantom test, phantom tests using respiratory motion, pre-treatment patient plan review of contouring/outlining, and on-treatment/post-treatment patient plan review of dosimetric coverage). While similar trends were observed, proton therapy had higher risk failures, driven by higher severity scores. A sub-analysis of occurrence × severity scores identified high-risk scores to prioritize for improvements in RTQA detectability. A novel severity scaler was introduced to account for the number of patients affected by each failure. This scaler did not substantially alter the ranking of tests, but it elevated the QA program evaluation to the top 20th percentile. This is the first FMEA performed for clinical trial quality assurance.

CONCLUSION

The identification of high-risk errors associated with clinical trials is valuable to prioritize and reduce errors in radiotherapy and improve the quality of trial data and outcomes, and can be applied to optimize clinical radiotherapy QA.

The role of medical physicists in clinical trials across Europe

INTRODUCTION

The roles and responsibilities of medical physicists (MPs) are growing together with the evolving science and technology. The complexity of today's clinical trials requires the skills and knowledge of MPs for their safe and efficient implementation. However, it is unclear to what extent the skillsets offered by MPs are being exploited in clinical trials across Europe.

METHODS

The EFOMP Working Group on the role of Medical Physics Experts in Clinical Trials has designed a survey that targeted all 36 current National Member Organisations, receiving a response from 31 countries. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative queries regarding the involvement of MPs in trial design, setup, and coordination, either as trial team members or principal investigators.

RESULTS

The extent of MPs involvement in clinical trials greatly varies across European countries. The results showed disparities between the roles played by MPs in trial design, conduct or data processing. Similarly, differences among the 31 European countries that responded to the survey were found regarding the existence of national bodies responsible for trials or the available training offered to MPs. The role of principal investigator or co-investigator was reported by 12 countries (39%), a sign of efficient collaboration with medical doctors in designing and implementing clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Organisation of specific training courses and guideline development for clinical trial design and conduct would encourage the involvement of a larger number of MPs in all stages of trials across Europe, leading to a better standardisation of clinical practice.

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.

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

PURPOSE

To promote consistency in clinical trials by recommending a uniform framework as it relates to radiation transport and dose calculation in water versus in medium.

METHODS

The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonisation Group (GHG; www.rtqaharmonization.org) compared the differences between dose to water in water (D_w,w), dose to water in medium (D_w,m), and dose to medium in medium (D_m,m). This was done based on a review of historical frameworks, existing literature and standards, clinical issues in the context of clinical trials, and the trajectory of radiation dose calculations. Based on these factors, recommendations were developed.

RESULTS

No framework was found to be ideal or perfect given the history, complexity, and current status of radiation therapy. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the GHG established a recommendation preferring dose to medium in medium (D_m,m).

CONCLUSIONS

Dose to medium in medium (D_m,m) is the preferred dose calculation and reporting framework. If an institution's planning system can only calculate dose to water in water (D_w,w), this is acceptable.

Current Status of Radiopharmaceutical Therapy

In radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT), a radionuclide is systemically or locally delivered with the goal of targeting and delivering radiation to cancer cells while minimizing radiation exposure to untargeted cells. Examples of current RPTs include thyroid ablation with the administration of ¹³¹I, treatment of liver cancer with ⁹⁰Y microspheres, the treatment of bony metastases with ²²³Ra, and the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors with ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE. New RPTs are being developed where radionuclides are incorporated into systemic targeted therapies. To assure that RPT is appropriately implemented, advances in targeting need to be matched with advances in quantitative imaging and dosimetry methods. Currently, radiopharmaceutical therapy is administered by intravenous or locoregional injection, and the treatment planning has typically been implemented like chemotherapy, where the activity administered is either fixed or based on a patient's body weight or body surface area. RPT pharmacokinetics are measurable by quantitative imaging and are known to vary across patients, both in tumors and normal tissues. Therefore, fixed or weight-based activity prescriptions are not currently optimized to deliver a cytotoxic dose to targets while remaining within the tolerance dose of organs at risk. Methods that provide dose estimates to individual patients rather than to reference geometries are needed to assess and adjust the injected RPT dose. Accurate doses to targets and organs at risk will benefit the individual patients and decrease uncertainties in clinical trials. Imaging can be used to measure activity distribution in vivo, and this information can be used to determine patient-specific treatment plans where the dose to the targets and organs at risk can be calculated. The development and adoption of imaging-based dosimetry methods is particularly beneficial in early clinical trials. In this work we discuss dosimetric accuracy needs in modern radiation oncology, uncertainties in the dosimetry in RPT, and best approaches for imaging and dosimetry of internal radionuclide therapy.

Urethra-Sparing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Quality Assurance of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial

PURPOSE

To present the radiation therapy quality assurance results from a prospective multicenter phase 2 randomized trial of short versus protracted urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2012 and 2015, 165 patients with prostate cancer from 9 centers were randomized and treated with SBRT delivered either every other day (arm A, n = 82) or once a week (arm B, n = 83); 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were prescribed to the prostate with (n = 92) or without (n = 73) inclusion of the seminal vesicles (SV), and the urethra planning-risk volume received 32.5 Gy. Patients were treated either with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT; n = 112) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT; n = 53). Deviations from protocol dose constraints, planning target volume (PTV) homogeneity index, PTV Dice similarity coefficient, and number of monitor units for each treatment plan were retrospectively analyzed. Dosimetric results of VMAT versus IMRT and treatment plans with versus without inclusion of SV were compared.

RESULTS

At least 1 major protocol deviation occurred in 51 patients (31%), whereas none was observed in 41. Protocol violations were more frequent in the IMRT group (P < .001). Furthermore, the use of VMAT yielded better dosimetric results than IMRT for urethra planning-risk volume D_98% (31.1 vs 30.8 Gy, P < .0001), PTV D_2% (37.9 vs 38.7 Gy, P < .0001), homogeneity index (0.09 vs 0.10, P < .0001), Dice similarity coefficient (0.83 vs 0.80, P < .0001), and bladder wall V_50% (24.5% vs 33.5%, P = .0001). To achieve its goals volumetric modulated arc therapy required fewer monitor units than IMRT (2275 vs 3378, P <.0001). The inclusion of SV in the PTV negatively affected the rectal wall V_90% (9.1% vs 10.4%, P = .0003) and V_80% (13.2% vs 15.7%, P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Protocol deviations with potential impact on tumor control or toxicity occurred in 31% of patients in this prospective clinical trial. Protocol deviations were more frequent with IMRT. Prospective radiation therapy quality assurance protocols should be strongly recommended for SBRT trials to minimize potential protocol deviations.

Credentialing of vertebral stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in a multi-centre trial

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in multi-centre trials requires rigorous quality assurance to ensure safe and consistent treatment for all trial participants. We report results of vertebral SABR dosimetry credentialing for the ALTG/TROG NIVORAD trial.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Centres with a previous SABR site visit performed axial film measurement of the benchmarking vertebral plan in a local phantom and submitted radiochromic film images for analysis. Remaining centres had on-site review of SABR processes and axial film measurement of the vertebral benchmarking plan. Films were analysed for dosimetric and positional accuracy: gamma analysis (>90% passing 2%/2mm/10% threshold) and ≤ 1 mm positional accuracy at target-cord interface was required.

RESULTS

19 centres were credentialed; 11 had on-site measurement. Delivery devices included linear accelerator, TomoTherapy and CyberKnife systems. Five centres did not achieve 90% gamma passing rate. Of these, three were out of tolerance (OOT) in low (<5Gy) dose regions and > 80% passing rate and deemed acceptable. Two were OOT over the full dose range: one elected not to remeasure; the other also had positional discrepancy greater than 1 mm and repeat measurement with a new plan was in tolerance. The original OOT was attributed to inappropriate MLC constraints. All centres delivered planned target-cord dose gradient within 1 mm.

CONCLUSION

Credentialing measurements for vertebral SABR in a multi-centre trial showed although the majority of centres delivered accurate vertebral SABR, there is high value in independent audit measurements. One centre with inappropriate MLC settings was detected, which may have resulted in delivery of clinically unacceptable vertebral SABR plans.

Pragmatic randomised clinical trial of proton versus photon therapy for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: the Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Consortium trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

A broad range of stakeholders have called for randomised evidence on the potential clinical benefits and harms of proton therapy, a type of radiation therapy, for patients with breast cancer. Radiation therapy is an important component of curative treatment, reducing cancer recurrence and extending survival. Compared with photon therapy, the international treatment standard, proton therapy reduces incidental radiation to the heart. Our overall objective is to evaluate whether the differences between proton and photon therapy cardiac radiation dose distributions lead to meaningful reductions in cardiac morbidity and mortality after treatment for breast cancer.

METHODS

We are conducting a large scale, multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial for patients with breast cancer who will be followed longitudinally for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and cancer control outcomes. A total of 1278 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer will be randomly allocated to receive either photon or proton therapy. The primary outcomes are major cardiovascular events, defined as myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmia or pericardial disease. Secondary endpoints are urgent or unanticipated outpatient or emergency room visits for heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease or pericardial disease. The Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Clinical Events Centre will conduct centralised, blinded adjudication of primary outcome events.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The RadComp trial has been approved by the institutional review boards of all participating sites. Recruitment began in February 2016. Current version of the protocol is A3, dated 08 November 2018. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, stakeholder engagement efforts and presentation to the public via lay media outlets.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02603341.

Physics aspects of setting up a multicenter clinical trial involving internal dosimetry of radioiodine treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer

The field of molecular radiotherapy is expanding rapidly, with the advent of many new radiotherapeutics for the treatment of common as well as for rare cancers. Treatment outcome is dependent on the absorbed doses delivered to target volumes and to healthy organs-at-risk, which are shown to vary widely from fixed administrations of activity. There have been significant developments in quantitative imaging and internal dosimetry in recent years, although clinical implementation of these methods has been slow in comparison with external beam radiotherapy, partly due to there being relatively few patients treated at single centers. Multicenter clinical trials are therefore essential to acquire the data required to ensure best practice and to develop the personalized treatment planning that this area is well suited to, due to the unrivalled opportunity to image the therapeutic drug in vivo. Initial preparation for such trials requires a significant effort in terms of resources and trial design. Imaging systems in participating centers must be characterized and set up for quantitative imaging to allow for collation of data. Data transfer for centralized processing is usually necessary but is hindered in some cases by data protection regulations and local logistics. Recent multicenter clinical trials involving radioiodine therapy have begun to establish the procedures necessary for quantitative SPECT imaging in a multicenter setting using standard and anthropomorphic phantoms. The establishment of national and international multicenter imaging and dosimetry networks will provide frameworks to develop and harmonize best practice with existing therapeutic procedures and to ensure rapid and optimized clinical implementation of new radiotherapeutics across all centers of excellence that offer molecular radiotherapy. This will promote networks and collaborations that can provide a sound basis for further developments and will ensure that nuclear medicine maintains a key role in future developments.

Remote dosimetric auditing of clinical trials: The need for vendor specific models to convert images to dose

INTRODUCTION

A previous pilot study has demonstrated the feasibility of a novel image-based approach for remote dosimetric auditing of clinical trials. The approach uses a model to convert in-air acquired intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) images to delivered dose inside a virtual phantom. The model was developed using images from an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) on a Varian linear accelerator. It was tuned using beam profiles and field size factors (FSFs) of a series of square fields measured in water tank. This work investigates the need for vendor specific conversion models for image-based auditing. The EPID measured profile and FSF data for Varian (vendor 1) and Elekta (vendor 2) systems are compared along with the performance of the existing Varian model (VM) and a new Elekta model (EM) for a series of audit IMRT fields measured on vendor 2 systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The EPID measured beam profile and FSF data were studied for the two vendors to quantify and understand their relevant dosimetric differences. Then, an EM was developed converting EPID to dose in the virtual water phantom using a vendor 2 water tank data and images from corresponding EPID. The VM and EM were compared for predicting vendor 2 measured dose in water tank. Then, the performance of the new EM was compared to the VM for auditing of 54 IMRT fields from four vendor 2 facilities. Statistical significance of using vendor specific models was determined.

RESULTS

Observed dosimetry differences between the two vendors suggested developing an EM would be beneficial. The EM performed better than VM for vendor 2 square and IMRT fields. The IMRT audit gamma pass rates were (99.8 ± 0.5)%, (98.6 ± 2.3)% and (97.0 ± 3.0)% at respectively 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm with improvements at most fields compared with using the VM. For the pilot audit, the difference between gamma results of the two vendors was reduced when using vendor specific models (VM: P < 0.0001, vendor specific models: P = 0.0025).

CONCLUSION

A new model was derived to convert images from vendor 2 EPIDs to dose for remote auditing vendor 2 deliveries. Using vendor specific models is recommended to remotely audit systems from different vendors, however, the improvements found were not major.

Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance

Background and purpose

Remote beam output audits, which independently measure an institution’s machine calibration, are a common component of independent radiotherapy peer review. This work reviews the results and trends of these audit results across several organisations and geographical regions.

Materials and methods

Beam output audit results from the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Services, International Atomic Energy Agency, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, and Radiation Dosimetry Services were evaluated from 2010 to the present. The rate of audit results outside a ±5% tolerance was evaluated for photon and electron beams as a function of the year of irradiation and nominal beam energy. Additionally, examples of confirmed calibration errors were examined to provide guidance to clinical physicists and auditing bodies.

Results

Of the 210,167 audit results, 1323 (0.63%) were outside of tolerance. There was a clear trend of improved audit performance for more recent dates, and while all photon energies generally showed uniform rates of results out of tolerance, low (6 MeV) and high (≥18 MeV) energy electron beams showed significantly elevated rates. Twenty nine confirmed calibration errors were explored and attributed to a range of issues, such as equipment failures, errors in setup, and errors in performing the clinical reference calibration. Forty-two percent of these confirmed errors were detected during ongoing periodic monitoring, and not at the time of the first audit of the machine.

Conclusions

Remote beam output audits have identified, and continue to identify, numerous and often substantial beam calibration errors.

Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Independent dosimetry audits improve quality and safety of radiation therapy. This work reports on design and findings of a comprehensive 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) Level III audit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The audit was conducted as onsite audit using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom in an end-to-end test by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS). Absolute dose point measurements were performed with Farmer-type ionization chambers. The audited treatment plans included open and half blocked fields, wedges and lung inhomogeneities. Audit results were determined as Pass Optimal Level (deviations within 3.3%), Pass Action Level (greater than 3.3% but within 5%) and Out of Tolerance (beyond 5%), as well as Reported Not Scored (RNS). The audit has been performed between July 2012 and January 2018 on 94 occasions, covering approximately 90% of all Australian facilities.

RESULTS

The audit pass rate was 87% (53% optimal). Fifty recommendations were given, mainly related to planning system commissioning. Dose overestimation behind low density inhomogeneities by the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was identified across facilities and found to extend to beam setups which resemble a typical breast cancer treatment beam placement. RNS measurements inside lung showed a variation in the opposite direction: AAA under-dosed a target beyond lung and over-dosed the lung upstream and downstream of the target. Results also highlighted shortcomings of some superposition and convolution algorithms in modelling large angle wedges.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit showed that 3D-CRT dosimetry audits remain relevant and can identify fundamental global and local problems that also affect advanced treatments.

Credentialing of radiotherapy centres in Australasia for TROG 09.02 (Chisel), a Phase III clinical trial on stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy of early stage lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

A randomised clinical trial comparing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) with conventional radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer has been conducted in Australia and New Zealand under the auspices of the TransTasman Radiation Oncology Group (NCT01014130). We report on the technical credentialing program as prerequisite for centres joining the trial.

METHODS

Participating centres were asked to develop treatment plans for two test cases to assess their ability to create plans according to protocol. Dose delivery in the presence of inhomogeneity and motion was assessed during a site visit using a phantom with moving inserts.

RESULTS

Site visits for the trial were conducted in 16 Australian and 3 New Zealand radiotherapy facilities. The tests with low density inhomogeneities confirmed shortcomings of the AAA algorithm for dose calculation. Dose was assessed for a typical treatment delivery including at least one non-coplanar beam in a stationary and moving phantom. This end-to-end test confirmed that all participating centres were able to deliver stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy with the required accuracy while the planning study demonstrated that they were able to produce acceptable plans for both test cases.

CONCLUSION

The credentialing process documented that participating centres were able to deliver dose as required in the trial protocol. It also gave an opportunity to provide education about the trial and discuss technical issues such as four-dimensional CT, small field dosimetry and patient immobilisation with staff in participating centres. Advances in knowledge: Credentialing is an important quality assurance tool for radiotherapy trials using advanced technology. In addition to confirming technical competence, it provides an opportunity for education and discussion about the trial.

The role of Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core for precision medicine era of clinical trial

Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) services have been established for the quality assurance (QA) of imaging and radiotherapy (RT) for NCI's Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) for any trials that contain imaging or RT. The randomized clinical trial is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine. QA ensures data quality, preventing noise from inferior treatments obscuring clinical trial outcome. QA is also found to be cost-effective. IROC has made great progress in multi-institution standardization and is expected to lead QA standardization, QA science in imaging and RT and to advance quality data analysis with big data in the future. The QA in the era of precision medicine is of paramount importance, when individualized decision making may depend on the quality and accuracy of RT and imaging.

Radiation Therapy Deficiencies Identified During On-Site Dosimetry Visits by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center

PURPOSE

To review the dosimetric, mechanical, and programmatic deficiencies most frequently observed during on-site visits of radiation therapy facilities by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston (IROC Houston).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The findings of IROC Houston between 2000 and 2014, including 409 institutions and 1020 linear accelerators (linacs), were compiled. On-site evaluations by IROC Houston include verification of absolute calibration (tolerance of ±3%), relative dosimetric review (tolerances of ±2% between treatment planning system [TPS] calculation and measurement), mechanical evaluation (including multileaf collimator and kilovoltage-megavoltage isocenter evaluation against Task Group [TG]-142 tolerances), and general programmatic review (including institutional quality assurance program vs TG-40 and TG-142).

RESULTS

An average of 3.1 deficiencies was identified at each institution visited, a number that has decreased slightly with time. The most common errors are tabulated and include TG-40/TG-142 compliance (82% of institutions were deficient), small field size output factors (59% of institutions had errors ≥3%), and wedge factors (33% of institutions had errors ≥3%). Dosimetric errors of ≥10%, including in beam calibration, were seen at many institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial room for improvement of both dosimetric and programmatic issues in radiation therapy, which should be a high priority for the medical physics community. Particularly relevant was suboptimal beam modeling in the TPS and a corresponding failure to detect these errors by not including TPS data in the linac quality assurance process.

Use of an in-house Monte Carlo platform to assess the clinical impact of algorithm-related dose differences on DVH constraints

PURPOSE

The aim of the present work is to evaluate a semi-automatic prescription and validation system of treatment plans for complex delivery techniques, integrated in a Monte Carlo platform, and to investigate the clinical impact of dose differences due to the calculation algorithms, by assessing the changes in DVH constraints.

METHODS

A new prescription module was implemented into the Moderato system, an in-house Monte Carlo platform, with corresponding dose constraints generated depending on the anatomical region and fractionation scheme considered. The platform was tested on 83 cases treated with Cyberknife and Tomotherapy machines, to assess whether dose variations between the re-calculated dose and the Treatment Planning System might impact the dose constraints on the sensitive structures.

RESULTS

Dose differences were small (within 3%) between calculation algorithms in most of the thoracic, pelvic and abdominal cases, both for the Cyberknife and Tomotherapy machines. On the other hand, spinal and head and neck treatments presented a few significant dose deviations for constraints on small volumes, such as the optic pathways and the spinal cord. These differences range from -11% to +6%, inducing constraint violations of up to 8% over the dose limit.

CONCLUSIONS

The Moderato platform offers an interesting tool for plan quality validation, with a prescription module highlighting crucial features in the structures list, and a Monte Carlo dose re-calculation for complex modern techniques. Due to the high number of warnings appearing in some situations, display optimization is required in practice.

Radiotherapy dosimetry audit: three decades of improving standards and accuracy in UK clinical practice and trials

Dosimetry audit plays an important role in the development and safety of radiotherapy. National and large scale audits are able to set, maintain and improve standards, as well as having the potential to identify issues which may cause harm to patients. They can support implementation of complex techniques and can facilitate awareness and understanding of any issues which may exist by benchmarking centres with similar equipment. This review examines the development of dosimetry audit in the UK over the past 30 years, including the involvement of the UK in international audits. A summary of audit results is given, with an overview of methodologies employed and lessons learnt. Recent and forthcoming more complex audits are considered, with a focus on future needs including the arrival of proton therapy in the UK and other advanced techniques such as four-dimensional radiotherapy delivery and verification, stereotactic radiotherapy and MR linear accelerators. The work of the main quality assurance and auditing bodies is discussed, including how they are working together to streamline audit and to ensure that all radiotherapy centres are involved. Undertaking regular external audit motivates centres to modernize and develop techniques and provides assurance, not only that radiotherapy is planned and delivered accurately but also that the patient dose delivered is as prescribed.

Dosimetric audit in brachytherapy

Dosimetric audit is required for the improvement of patient safety in radiotherapy and to aid optimization of treatment. The reassurance that treatment is being delivered in line with accepted standards, that delivered doses are as prescribed and that quality improvement is enabled is as essential for brachytherapy as it is for the more commonly audited external beam radiotherapy. Dose measurement in brachytherapy is challenging owing to steep dose gradients and small scales, especially in the context of an audit. Several different approaches have been taken for audit measurement to date: thimble and well-type ionization chambers, thermoluminescent detectors, optically stimulated luminescence detectors, radiochromic film and alanine. In this work, we review all of the dosimetric brachytherapy audits that have been conducted in recent years, look at current audits in progress and propose required directions for brachytherapy dosimetric audit in the future. The concern over accurate source strength measurement may be essentially resolved with modern equipment and calibration methods, but brachytherapy is a rapidly developing field and dosimetric audit must keep pace.

Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning system audit

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

One of the newer audit modalities operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) involves audits of treatment planning systems (TPS) in radiotherapy. The main focus of the audit is the dosimetry verification of the delivery of a radiation treatment plan for three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy using high energy photon beams. The audit has been carried out in eight European countries - Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, Poland and Portugal. The corresponding results are presented.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The TPS audit reviews the dosimetry, treatment planning and radiotherapy delivery processes using the 'end-to-end' approach, i.e. following the pathway similar to that of the patient, through imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The audit is implemented at the national level with IAEA assistance. The national counterparts conduct the TPS audit at local radiotherapy centres through on-site visits. TPS calculated doses are compared with ion chamber measurements performed in an anthropomorphic phantom for eight test cases per algorithm/beam. A set of pre-defined agreement criteria is used to analyse the performance of TPSs.

RESULTS

TPS audit was carried out in 60 radiotherapy centres. In total, 190 data sets (combination of algorithm and beam quality) have been collected and reviewed. Dosimetry problems requiring interventions were discovered in about 10% of datasets. In addition, suboptimal beam modelling in TPSs was discovered in a number of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The TPS audit project using the IAEA methodology has verified the treatment planning system calculations for 3D conformal radiotherapy in a group of radiotherapy centres in Europe. It contributed to achieving better understanding of the performance of TPSs and helped to resolve issues related to imaging, dosimetry and treatment planning.

Quality assurance for clinical trials

Cooperative groups, of which the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group is one example, conduct national clinical trials that often involve the use of radiation therapy. In preparation for such a trial, the cooperative group prepares a protocol to define the goals of the trial, the rationale for its design, and the details of the treatment procedure to be followed. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is one of several quality assurance (QA) offices that is charged with assuring that participating institutions deliver doses that are clinically consistent and comparable. The RPC does this by conducting a variety of independent audits and credentialing processes. The RPC has compiled data showing that credentialing can help institutions comply with the requirements of a cooperative group clinical protocol. Phantom irradiations have been demonstrated to exercise an institution's procedures for planning and delivering advanced external beam techniques (1-3). Similarly, RPC data indicate that a rapid review of patient treatment records or planning procedures can improve compliance with clinical trials (4). The experiences of the RPC are presented as examples of the contributions that a national clinical trials QA center can make to cooperative group trials. These experiences illustrate the critical need for comprehensive QA to assure that clinical trials are successful and cost-effective. The RPC is supported by grants CA 10953 and CA 81647 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS.

Radiotherapy protocol deviations and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of cooperative group clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Noncompliance with radiotherapy (RT) protocol guidelines has been linked to inferior clinical outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of cooperative group trials to examine the association between RT quality assurance (QA) deviations and disease control and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for multi-institutional trials that reported clinical outcomes in relation to RT QA results. Hazard ratios (HRs) describing the association between RT protocol noncompliance and patient outcomes were extracted directly from the original studies or calculated from survival curves. Inverse variance meta-analyses were performed to assess the association between RT QA deviations and OS. A second meta-analysis tested the association between RT QA deviations and secondary outcomes, including local or locoregional control, event-free survival, and relapse. Random-effects models were used in cases of statistically significant (P < .10) effect heterogeneity. The Egger test was used to detect publication bias. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Eight studies (four pediatric, four adult) met all inclusion criteria and were incorporated into this analysis. The frequency of RT QA deviations ranged from 8% to 71% (median = 32%). In a random-effects model, RT deviations were associated with a statistically significant decrease in OS (HR of death = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 2.35; P < .001). A similar effect was seen for secondary outcomes (HR of treatment failure = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.78; P = .009). No evidence of publication bias was detected.

CONCLUSION

In clinical trials, RT protocol deviations are associated with increased risks of treatment failure and overall mortality.

Credentialing for participation in clinical trials

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical cooperative groups have been instrumental over the past 50 years in developing clinical trials and evidence-based clinical trial processes for improvements in patient care. The cooperative groups are undergoing a transformation process to launch, conduct, and publish clinical trials more rapidly. Institutional participation in clinical trials can be made more efficient and include the expansion of relationships with international partners. This paper reviews the current processes that are in use in radiation therapy trials and the importance of maintaining effective credentialing strategies to assure the quality of the outcomes of clinical trials. The paper offers strategies to streamline and harmonize credentialing tools and processes moving forward as the NCI undergoes transformative change in the conduct of clinical trials.

Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems in Serbia: national audit

Background

Independent external audits play an important role in quality assurance programme in radiation oncology. The audit supported by the IAEA in Serbia was designed to review the whole chain of activities in 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) workflow, from patient data acquisition to treatment planning and dose delivery. The audit was based on the IAEA recommendations and focused on dosimetry part of the treatment planning and delivery processes.

Methods

The audit was conducted in three radiotherapy departments of Serbia. An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with a computed tomography unit (CT) and treatment plans for eight different test cases involving various beam configurations suggested by the IAEA were prepared on local treatment planning systems (TPSs). The phantom was irradiated following the treatment plans for these test cases and doses in specific points were measured with an ionization chamber. The differences between the measured and calculated doses were reported.

Results

The measurements were conducted for different photon beam energies and TPS calculation algorithms. The deviation between the measured and calculated values for all test cases made with advanced algorithms were within the agreement criteria, while the larger deviations were observed for simpler algorithms. The number of measurements with results outside the agreement criteria increased with the increase of the beam energy and decreased with TPS calculation algorithm sophistication. Also, a few errors in the basic dosimetry data in TPS were detected and corrected.

Conclusions

The audit helped the users to better understand the operational features and limitations of their TPSs and resulted in increased confidence in dose calculation accuracy using TPSs. The audit results indicated the shortcomings of simpler algorithms for the test cases performed and, therefore the transition to more advanced algorithms is highly desirable.

Redesigning radiotherapy quality assurance: opportunities to develop an efficient, evidence-based system to support clinical trials--report of the National Cancer Institute Work Group on Radiotherapy Quality Assurance

PURPOSE

In the context of national calls for reorganizing cancer clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a 2-day workshop to examine challenges and opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) in clinical trial design.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Participants reviewed the current processes of clinical trial QA and noted the QA challenges presented by advanced technologies. The lessons learned from the radiotherapy QA programs of recent trials were discussed in detail. Four potential opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy QA were explored, including the use of normal tissue toxicity and tumor control metrics, biomarkers of radiation toxicity, new radiotherapy modalities such as proton beam therapy, and the international harmonization of clinical trial QA.

RESULTS

Four recommendations were made: (1) to develop a tiered (and more efficient) system for radiotherapy QA and tailor the intensity of QA to the clinical trial objectives (tiers include general credentialing, trial-specific credentialing, and individual case review); (2) to establish a case QA repository; (3) to develop an evidence base for clinical trial QA and introduce innovative prospective trial designs to evaluate radiotherapy QA in clinical trials; and (4) to explore the feasibility of consolidating clinical trial QA in the United States.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy QA can affect clinical trial accrual, cost, outcomes, and generalizability. To achieve maximum benefit, QA programs must become more efficient and evidence-based.

Implications of comparative effectiveness research for radiation oncology

PURPOSE

The essence of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to understand what health interventions work, for which patients, and under what conditions. The objective of this article is to introduce the relative strengths and weaknesses of several forms of evidence to illustrate the potential for CER evidence generation within radiation oncology.

METHODS

We introduce the underlying concepts of effectiveness and efficacy. We describe the design of traditional explanatory randomized trials (RCTs). We introduce the rationale, strengths, and weaknesses of several alternative study designs for comparative effectiveness, including pragmatic clinical trials, adaptive trials, and observational (nonrandomized) studies.

RESULTS

Explanatory RCTs are designed to assess the efficacy of an intervention while achieving a high degree of internal validity. Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are prospective studies performed in typical, real-world clinical practice settings. The emphasis of PCTs is to maintain a degree of internal validity while also maximizing external validity. Adaptive trials can be modified at interim stages using existing or evolving evidence in the course of a trial, which may allow trials to maintain clinical relevance by studying current treatments. Observational data are becoming increasingly important, given substantial funding for clinical registries and greater availability of electronic medical records and claims databases, but need to address well-known limitations such as selection bias.

CONCLUSION

With the rapid proliferation of new and evolving radiotherapy technologies, it is incumbent upon our field to invest in building the evidence base for radiotherapy CER and to actively participate in current initiatives for generating comparative evidence.

Influence of MLC leaf width on biologically adapted IMRT plans

INTRODUCTION

High resolution beam delivery may be required for optimal biology-guided adaptive therapy. In this work, we have studied the influence of multi leaf collimator (MLC) leaf widths on the treatment outcome following adapted IMRT of a hypoxic tumour.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Dynamic contrast enhanced MR images of a dog with a spontaneous tumour in the nasal region were used to create a tentative hypoxia map following a previously published procedure. The hypoxia map was used as a basis for generating compartmental gross tumour volumes, which were utilised as planning structures in biologically adapted IMRT. Three different MLCs were employed in inverse treatment planning, with leaf widths of 2.5 mm, 5 mm and 10 mm. The number of treatment beams and the degree of step-and-shoot beam modulation were varied. By optimising the tumour control probability (TCP) function, optimal compartmental doses were derived and used as target doses in the inverse planning. Resulting IMRT dose distributions and dose volume histograms (DVHs) were exported and analysed, giving estimates of TCP and compartmental equivalent uniform doses (EUDs). The impact of patient setup accuracy was simulated.

RESULTS

The MLC with the smallest leaf width (2.5 mm) consistently gave the highest TCPs and compartmental EUDs, assuming no setup error. The difference between this MLC and the 5 mm MLC was rather small, while the MLC with 10 mm leaf width gave considerably lower TCPs. When including random and systematic setup errors, errors larger than 5 mm gave only small differences between the MLC types. For setup errors larger than 7 mm no differences were found between non-uniform and uniform dose distributions.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologically adapted radiotherapy may require MLCs with leaf widths smaller than 10 mm. However, for a high probability of cure it is crucial that accurate patient setup is ensured.