Quality assurance standards drive improvements in the profile of radiation therapy departments participating in trials of the EORTC Radiation Oncology Group

Pretrial Quality Assurance for Hypofractionated Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy in the Multi-Institutional PERYTON-trial

Purpose

The PERYTON trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial that will investigate whether the treatment outcome of salvage external beam radiation therapy (sEBRT) will be improved with hypofractionated radiation therapy. A pretrial quality assurance (QA) program was undertaken to ensure protocol compliance within the PERYTON trial and to assess variation in sEBRT treatment protocols between the participating centers.

Methods and Materials

Completion of the QA program was mandatory for each participating center (N = 8) to start patient inclusion. The pretrial QA program included (1) a questionnaire on the center-specific sEBRT protocol, (2) a delineation exercise of the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk, and (3) a treatment planning exercise. All contours were analyzed using the pairwise dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and the 50th and 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD50 and HD95, respectively). The submitted treatment plans were reviewed for protocol compliance.

Results

The results of the questionnaire showed that high-quality, state-of-the-art radiation therapy techniques were used in the participating centers and identified variations of the sEBRT protocols used concerning the position verification and preparation techniques. The submitted CTVs showed significant variation, with a range in volume of 29 cm3 to 167 cm3, a mean pairwise DSC of 0.52, and a mean HD50 and HD95 of 2.3 mm and 24.4 mm, respectively. Only in 1 center the treatment plan required adaptation before meeting all constraints of the PERYTON protocol.

Conclusions

The pretrial QA of the PERYTON trial demonstrated that high-quality, but variable, radiation techniques were used in the 8 participating centers. The treatment planning exercise confirmed that the dose constraints of the PERYTON protocol were feasible for all participating centers. The observed variation in CTV delineation led to agreement on a new (image-based) delineation guideline to be used by all participating centers within the PERYTON trial.

Radiotherapy quality assurance in paediatric clinical trials: first report from six QUARTET-affiliated trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

SIOP Europe's QUARTET project launched in 2016; aiming to improve access to high-quality radiotherapy for children and adolescents treated within clinical trials across Europe. The aim of this report is to present the profile of institutions participating in six QUARTET-affiliated trials and a description of the initial individual case review (ICR) outcomes.

METHODS

This is a two-part analysis. Firstly, using facility questionnaires, beam output audit certificates, and advanced technique credentialing records to create a profile of approved institutions, and secondly, collating trial records for ICRs submitted prior to 31/10/2022. Trials included are: SIOPEN HR-NBL1, SIOPEN-LINES, SIOPEN- VERITAS, SIOP-BTG HRMB, EpSSG-FaR-RMS, and SIOPEN HR-NBL2.

RESULTS

By 31/10/2022, a total of 103 institutions had commenced QUARTET site approval procedures to participate in QUARTET-affiliated trials; 66 sites across 20 countries were approved. These participating institutions were often paediatric referral sites with intensity modulated radiotherapy or proton beam therapy, designated paediatric radiation oncologists, and paediatric adapted facilities and imaging protocols available. In total, 263 patient plans were submitted for ICR, 254 ICRs from 15 countries were completed. ICRs had a rejection rate of 39.8%, taking an average of 1.4 submissions until approval was achieved. Target delineation was the most frequent reason for rejection.

CONCLUSION

The QUARTET facility questionnaire is a valuable tool for mapping resources, personnel, and technology available to children and adolescents receiving radiotherapy. Prospective ICR is essential for paediatric oncology clinical trials and should be prioritised to reduce protocol violations.

The association of internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph node radiation technique with clinical outcomes: Results from the EORTC 22922/10925 randomised trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The multicentre EORTC 22922/10925 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00002851) was conducted between 1996 and 2004. The trial evaluated the effect of irradiation of the internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph node chains (IM-MS) vs no further radiation therapy (RT) on survival and cause of death in breast cancer stage I-III patients. At 15.7 years of median follow-up, a significant reduction of breast cancer specific mortality (BCSM) and any recurrence, not translating in improved overall survival (OS), and low absolute rates of side effects were found. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the association of RT techniques of IM-MS lymph node irradiation with long-term outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three RT techniques were used for IM-MS: a standard technique using a fixed set-up combining photon/electron beams to the IM and tangential fields to the breast or chest wall vs a standard-modified technique with minor adaptation for beam settings vs a more individualised technique based on individual localisation of the IM. Techniques used were fixed per institution over the duration of the trial. We performed an exploratory and descriptive analysis of the outcomes after 15 years follow-up for the three RT techniques.

RESULTS

Between July 1996 and January 2004, 46 radiation oncology departments from 13 countries accrued 4004 patients. Median follow-up was 15.7 years. The number of patients treated by each technique was 2440 (61%) by standard vs 635 (16%) by standard-modified vs 929 (23%) patients by individualised technique. The absolute improvements of oncological outcomes in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), OS and BCSM with IM-MS RT compared to no IM-MS RT were 6.8%, 4.9% and -5.8% for the individualised technique, vs 1.6%, 2.9% and -4.3% for modified standard and -1.4%, 1.1% and -3% for standard technique, respectively. The increase in 15-year rates of side effects due to IM-MS RT, both scored longitudinally and cross-sectionally, were similar among the techniques.

CONCLUSION

Even though a straightforward comparison by technique is not possible because of variations in baseline characteristics between institutions, our findings suggest that the use of more individualised RT techniques is associated with higher rates of oncological improvements without increased risks for late side effects.

Provision of Organ at Risk Contouring Guidance in UK Radiotherapy Clinical Trials

AIMS

Accurate delineation of organs at risk (OAR) is vital to the radiotherapy planning process. Inaccuracies in OAR delineation arising from imprecise anatomical definitions may affect plan optimisation and risk inappropriate dose delivery to normal tissues. The aim of this study was to review the provision of OAR contouring guidance in National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) portfolio clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Radiotherapy Quality Trials Assurance (RTTQA) Group carried out a two-round Delphi assessment to determine which OAR descriptions provided optimal guidance.

RESULTS

Eighty-four clinical trials involving radiotherapy quality assurance were identified as either in recruitment or in setup within the NIHR CRN portfolio. Fifty-nine trials mandated OAR contouring. In total there were 412 OAR; 171 were uniquely named; 159 OAR had more than one name associated with a single structure, with the greatest nomenclature variation seen for the femoral head ± neck, the parotid gland, and bowel. The two-round Delphi assessment determined 42 OAR descriptions as providing optimal contouring guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the need for OAR nomenclature and contouring guidance consistency across clinical trials. In response to this study and in conjunction with the Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonisation Group, the RTTQA Group is in collaboration with international partners to provide consensus recommendations for OAR delineation in clinical trials.

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.

Staffing Model for Radiation Therapists in Ontario

PURPOSE

The Cancer Care Ontario's (CCO) Radiation Program Leadership tasked the Radiation Therapy Professional Advisory Committee (RTPAC) to develop a radiation therapist (RT) staffing model to support current radiation therapy practice.

BACKGROUND

A 1999 RT staffing model was outdated. Limitations included: (1) the inability to keep pace with advanced treatment planning and/or delivery techniques, (2) the exclusion of staffing for brachytherapy and orthovoltage, and (3) the omission of vital patient safety activities that are required to support clinical practices.

METHODS

The RTPAC used a comprehensive scientific methodology to develop the new staffing model. A thorough literature review was completed, and an evidence-based model was developed. A unique creativity tool, the simplex process, was used to identify all the RTs' domains of practice that are integral for professional practice. All domains identified were included in the recommended staffing model.

RESULTS

The staffing model recommends basing the number of RTs on equipment and associated clinical activities. The following staffing numbers are recommended: (1) linear accelerators: 4 full-time equivalent (FTEs) RTs per 10-hour day, (2) brachytherapy: 3 FTEs/8-hour day, (3) orthovoltage: 3 FTEs/8-hour day, (4) CT simulator: 3 FTEs/8-hour day and 4 FTEs/10-hour day, (5) dosimetry: 1 FTE/325 courses per year, (6) radiation oncology systems support and technology development implementation: 1 FTE/4 linear accelerator, (7) administration and education: 1 manager, 1 FTE supervisor/30 staff, 1 FTE professional practice leader/8 linear accelerators, 1 FTE staff educator/8 linear accelerators, 1 FTE undergraduate educator/8-10 students, and (8) additional 20% FTEs of the total for vacation, sick time, maternity leaves, and other leaves.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommended staffing model is now more suitable for today's radiation therapy profession by addressing the domains of practice and clinical activities. Further research includes monitoring performance indicators annually to ensure that the staffing model is current. These indicators include wait times, access to care, radiation incidents, technological advances, and the quality of work-life of RTs.