EORTC Radiation Oncology Group quality assurance platform: establishment of a digital central review facility

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.

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.

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.

Results of a multicenter 4D computed tomography quality assurance audit: Evaluating image accuracy and consistency

Background and purpose

4D Computed Tomography (4DCT) technology captures the location and movement of tumors and nearby organs at risk over time. In this study, a multi-institutional multi-vendor 4DCT audit was initiated to assess the accuracy of current imaging protocols.

Materials and methods

Twelve centers, including thirteen scanners performed a 4DCT acquisition of a dynamic thorax phantom using the institution's own protocol with the in-house breathing monitoring system. Five regular and three irregular breathing patterns were used. Image acquisition and reconstruction were followed by automated image analysis with our in-house developed 4DCT QA program (QAMotion). CT number accuracy, volume deviation, amplitude deviation, and spatial integrity were assessed per pattern using both the segmented volumes and line profiles.

Results

Regular breathing curves showed relatively accurate results across all institutions, with mean volume and CT number deviations and median amplitude deviation below 2%, 5 HU and 2 mm, respectively. Results obtained for irregular patterns showed more variation across the institutions. Volume and CT number deviations co-occurred with a blurring of the sphere, interpolation, or double-structure artifacts that were confirmed through the line profiles. For some of the irregular patterns, amplitude deviations up to 6 mm were observed. Maximum Intensity Projection (MaxIP) correctly captured the applied motion amplitude with deviations across all institutions within 2 mm except for double amplitude pattern.

Conclusions

All centers invited to participate in the audit responded positively, highlighting the need for a comprehensive yet easy-to-execute 4DCT quality assurance program. The largest variances between the results from one institution to another confirmed that a standardized 4DCT audit is warranted.

Analyzing magnetic resonance imaging data from glioma patients using deep learning

The quantitative analysis of images acquired in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with brain tumors has seen a significant rise in the clinical use of computational tools. The underlying technology to the vast majority of these tools are machine learning methods and, in particular, deep learning algorithms. This review offers clinical background information of key diagnostic biomarkers in the diagnosis of glioma, the most common primary brain tumor. It offers an overview of publicly available resources and datasets for developing new computational tools and image biomarkers, with emphasis on those related to the Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge. We further offer an overview of the state-of-the-art methods in glioma image segmentation, again with an emphasis on publicly available tools and deep learning algorithms that emerged in the context of the BraTS challenge.

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.

Prospective data registration and clinical trials for particle therapy in Europe

The overarching aim of work package 1 of the European Proton Therapy Network (EPTN) is to create a firm basis for evidence-based particle therapy at the European level. To achieve this, this work package will set up a worldwide unique prospective data registration programme for nine different tumour sites. Such programme will provide more insights into the current practice across all European particle therapy centres and into the results of particle therapy with regard to radiation-induced toxicity and efficacy in terms of local control and survival. More importantly, prospective data registration provides major opportunities to continuously improve the quality of particle therapy, by defining bench marks, to identify best practices that may learn others to improve quality of particle therapy, to synchronize selection criteria and to create more homogeneous patient cohorts to evaluate results, which is particularly important in rare tumours. This will be supported by EORTC through existing and new IT-infrastructure for data collection in different formats next to QA-platforms. In addition, work package 1 will define the requirements for high quality clinical trials in order to enhance high quality clinical trial proposals and determine alternative methods for RCT, such as the model-based approach.

Radiotherapy quality assurance for the RTOG 0834/EORTC 26053-22054/NCIC CTG CEC.1/CATNON intergroup trial "concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy in newly diagnosed non-1p/19q deleted anaplastic glioma": Individual case review analysis

BACKGROUND

The EORTC phase III 26053-22054/ RTOG 0834/NCIC CTG CEC.1/CATNON intergroup trial was designed to evaluate the impact on concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy in newly diagnosed non-1p/19q deleted anaplastic gliomas. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We report the results of retrospective individual case reviews (ICRs) for the first patient randomized per institution to detect the compliance with the study protocol.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty-nine institutions were required to submit the radiotherapy plan of their first randomized patient. Full digital datasets uploaded to the EORTC server were assessed by three independent and blinded reviewers through the EORTC radiotherapy quality assurance platform.

RESULTS

Sixty-two (90%) of sixty-nine ICRs were received and assessable. Of the 62 cases, 22 were evaluated as per protocol (35.5%), 11 as acceptable variation (17.7%) and 29 were classified as unacceptable variations (46.8%). Most common unacceptable variations were related to the PTV dose (n = 19, 31%) and delineation (n = 17, 27%) processes.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICR analysis showed a significant number of unacceptable variations with potential impact on tumor control and/or toxicity profile. Prospective ICRs are encouraged for future studies to prevent and correct protocol violations before start of treatment.

DBCG hypo trial validation of radiotherapy parameters from a national data bank versus manual reporting

INTRODUCTION

The current study evaluates the data quality achievable using a national data bank for reporting radiotherapy parameters relative to the classical manual reporting method of selected parameters.

METHODS

The data comparison is based on 1522 Danish patients of the DBCG hypo trial with data stored in the Danish national radiotherapy data bank. In line with standard DBCG trial practice selected parameters were also reported manually to the DBCG database. Categorical variables are compared using contingency tables, and comparison of continuous parameters is presented in scatter plots.

RESULTS

For categorical variables 25 differences between the data bank and manual values were located. Of these 23 were related to mistakes in the manual reported value whilst the remaining two were a wrong classification in the data bank. The wrong classification in the data bank was related to lack of dose information, since the two patients had been treated with an electron boost based on a manual calculation, thus data was not exported to the data bank, and this was not detected prior to comparison with the manual data. For a few database fields in the manual data an ambiguity of the parameter definition of the specific field is seen in the data. This was not the case for the data bank, which extract all data consistently.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of data quality the data bank is superior to manually reported values. However, there is a need to allocate resources for checking the validity of the available data as well as ensuring that all relevant data is present. The data bank contains more detailed information, and thus facilitates research related to the actual dose distribution in the patients.

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.

Intervention quality is not routinely assessed in Cochrane systematic reviews of radiation therapy interventions

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to maximise the benefits from clinical trials involving technological interventions such as radiation therapy. High compliance to the quality assurance protocols is crucial. We assessed whether the quality of radiation therapy intervention was evaluated in Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

We searched 416 published Cochrane systematic reviews and identified 67 Cochrane systematic reviews that investigated radiation therapy or radiotherapy as an intervention. For each systematic review, either quality assurance or quality control for the intervention was identified by a description of such processes in the published systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of the 67 Cochrane systematic reviews studied, only two mentioned quality assurance or quality control.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed that 65 of 67 (97%) Cochrane systematic reviews of radiation therapy interventions failed to consider the quality of the intervention. We suggest that advice about the evaluation of intervention quality be added to author support materials.

Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: is it 'what you do' or 'the way that you do it'? A UK Perspective on Technique and Quality Assurance

AIMS

The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history of prostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localised prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n = 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.

RESULTS

There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outlining review showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of the prostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints in ProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.

CONCLUSION

The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials.

Lungtech, a phase II EORTC trial of SBRT for centrally located lung tumours - a clinical physics perspective

Background

The EORTC has launched a phase II trial to assess safety and efficacy of SBRT for centrally located NSCLC: The EORTC 22113-08113—Lungtech trial. Due to neighbouring critical structures, these tumours remain challenging to treat. To guarantee accordance to protocol and treatment safety, an RTQA procedure has been implemented within the frame of the EORTC RTQA levels. These levels are here expanded to include innovative tools beyond protocol compliance verification: the actual dose delivered to each patient will be estimated and linked to trial outcomes to enable better understanding of dose related response and toxicity.

Method

For trial participation, institutions must provide a completed facility questionnaire and beam output audit results. To insure ability to comply with protocol specifications a benchmark case is sent to all centres. After approval, institutions are allowed to recruit patients. Nonetheless, each treatment plan will be prospectively reviewed insuring trial compliance consistency over time. As new features, patient’s CBCT images and applied positioning corrections will be saved for dose recalculation on patient’s daily geometry. To assess RTQA along the treatment chain, institutions will be visited once during the time of the trial. Over the course of this visit, end-to-end tests will be performed using the 008ACIRS-breathing platform with two separate bodies. The first body carries EBT3 films and an ionization chamber. The other body newly developed for PET- CT evaluation is fillable with a solution of high activity. 3D or 4D PET-CT and 4D-CT scanning techniques will be evaluated to assess the impact of motion artefacts on target volume accuracy. Finally, a dosimetric evaluation in static and dynamic conditions will be performed.

Discussion

Previous data on mediastinal toxicity are scarce and source of cautiousness for setting-up SBRT treatments for centrally located NSCLC. Thanks to the combination of documented patient related outcomes and CBCT based dose recalculation we expect to provide improved models for dose response and dose related toxicity.

Conclusion

We have developed a comprehensive RTQA model for trials involving modern radiotherapy. These procedures could also serve as examples of extended RTQA for future radiotherapy trials involving quantitative use of PET and tumour motion.

LungTech, an EORTC Phase II trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy for centrally located lung tumours: a clinical perspective

Evidence supports stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a curative treatment option for inoperable early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) resulting in high rates of tumour control and low risk of toxicity. However, promising results are mainly derived from SBRT of peripheral pulmonary lesions, whereas SBRT for the central tumours can lead to severe radiation sequelae owing to the spatial proximity to the serial organs at risk. Robust data on the tolerance of mediastinal structures to high-dose hypofractionated radiation are limited; furthermore, there are many open questions regarding the efficiency, safety and response assessment of SBRT in inoperable, centrally located early stage NSCLC, which are addressed in a prospective multicentre study [sponsored by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC 22113-08113-LungTech)]. In this review, we summarize the current status regarding SBRT for centrally located early stage NSCLC that leads to the rationale of the LungTech trial. Outline and some essential features of the study with focus on a summary of current experiences in dose/fraction-toxicity coherences after SBRT to the mediastinal structures that lead to LungTech normal tissue constraints are provided.

Does a central review platform improve the quality of radiotherapy for rectal cancer? Results of a national quality assurance project

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Quality assurance (QA) for radiation treatment has become a priority since poorly delivered radiotherapy can negatively influence patient outcome. Within a national project we evaluated the feasibility of a central review platform and its role in improving uniformity of clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in daily practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All Belgian radiotherapy departments were invited to participate and were asked to upload CTVs for rectal cancer treatment onto a secured server. These were centrally reviewed and feedback was given per e-mail. For each five consecutive patients per centre, the overlap parameter dice coefficient (DC) and the volumetric parameters volumetric ratio (RV) and commonly contoured volume (VCC) were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty departments submitted 1224 eligible cases of which 909 were modified (74.3%). There was a significant increase in RV and VCC between the first ten patients per centre and the others. This was not seen for DC. Statistical analysis did not show a further significant improvement in delineation over the entire review period.

CONCLUSION

Central review was feasible and increased the uniformity in CTV delineation in the first ten rectal cancer patients per centre. The observations in this study can be used to optimize future QA initiatives.

Benefits of a clinical data warehouse with data mining tools to collect data for a radiotherapy trial

INTRODUCTION

Collecting trial data in a medical environment is at present mostly performed manually and therefore time-consuming, prone to errors and often incomplete with the complex data considered. Faster and more accurate methods are needed to improve the data quality and to shorten data collection times where information is often scattered over multiple data sources. The purpose of this study is to investigate the possible benefit of modern data warehouse technology in the radiation oncology field.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, a Computer Aided Theragnostics (CAT) data warehouse combined with automated tools for feature extraction was benchmarked against the regular manual data-collection processes. Two sets of clinical parameters were compiled for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and rectal cancer, using 27 patients per disease. Data collection times and inconsistencies were compared between the manual and the automated extraction method.

RESULTS

The average time per case to collect the NSCLC data manually was 10.4 ± 2.1 min and 4.3 ± 1.1 min when using the automated method (p<0.001). For rectal cancer, these times were 13.5 ± 4.1 and 6.8 ± 2.4 min, respectively (p<0.001). In 3.2% of the data collected for NSCLC and 5.3% for rectal cancer, there was a discrepancy between the manual and automated method.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggregating multiple data sources in a data warehouse combined with tools for extraction of relevant parameters is beneficial for data collection times and offers the ability to improve data quality. The initial investments in digitizing the data are expected to be compensated due to the flexibility of the data analysis. Furthermore, successive investigations can easily select trial candidates and extract new parameters from the existing databases.

Compliance with therapeutic guidelines in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group prospective gastrointestinal clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This report analyzes the adherence to radiation therapy protocol guidelines in contemporary Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal trials. We aim to provide insight into current standards and compliance of radiation therapy field design and administration.

METHODS

From 1994 to 2006, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Committee of the RTOG initiated and completed 15 phase I-III clinical trials utilizing radiation therapy in the multimodality treatment of gastrointestinal cancers. In each protocol, details for planning and executing radiation therapy were outlined and each protocol contained scoring criteria for these components of radiation therapy, characterized according to per-protocol, variation acceptable and deviation unacceptable. Review of treatment planning and implementation was performed in all studies following therapy completion.

RESULTS

Radiation therapy planning and implementation was reviewed in 2309 of 2312 (99.9%) patients. The mean rate of compliance over all for the 15 protocols was 65% (total of the 2309 analyzed patients). The mean variation acceptable rate was 21% whereas the mean deviation unacceptable rate was 5%. The mean "other" rate (no RT given or incomplete RT due to death, progression or refusal) was 8%. Two of the 15 trials (13%) had deviation unacceptable rates >10%. In four studies incorporating pre-treatment review of radiation therapy planning and treatment, compliance with protocol therapy was enhanced.

CONCLUSIONS

The fidelity of radiation planning and execution detailed in protocol to actual therapy is heterogeneous, with a mean per-protocol rate of 65%. As clinical trials evolve, available technology should permit efficient pre-treatment review processes, thus facilitating compliance to protocol therapy. These analyses should also permit prospective analysis of outcome measures by compliance to therapy.