Quality assurance in the EORTC and implications for cooperative studies with the RTOG

The importance of quality assurance in surgical oncology

AIMS

The aims were to review the existing methods of quality assurance in surgical oncology and to determine a relationship between surgery-related factors and the variety in outcomes in the treatment of solid cancers.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed by searching Medline and Cancerlit databases.

RESULTS

Wide variations were found in virtually all tumour types. Clear evidence was found that an improvement in the quality of the surgical procedure could have major implications for the prognosis and quality of life of cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the need for strict quality control procedures in surgical oncology and might imply a considerable change in cancer treatment strategies, because the routine use of adjuvant therapies could be questioned.

Quality assurance in surgical oncology (QASO) within the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC): current status and future prospects

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) has a long history in the development of quality assurance, in particular in radio- and chemotherapy. Quality assurance in surgical oncology is considered to be more complicated, because it is a multistep procedure depending on the individual. Because of the growing importance of the quality of surgical intervention in the multi-modality treatment approach of most cancers, the EORTC recently decided to investigate the current status of quality assurance programmes, both outside and within, the EORTC. The review of EORTC involvement in this area has been conducted on the basis of interviews with subcommittee chairmen and Data Center teams of the EORTC clinical research groups. In addition, clinical trial protocols, case report forms (CRFs) and publications by the EORTC groups related to this field were considered as possible sources of information. Several methods have been used or are currently under investigation to ensure the quality of surgery within clinical trials. These include review of reported data, standardisation of surgery and pathology forms, training sessions and site visits. However, there has been no attempt to harmonise these initiatives across the different medical specialties. The EORTC will have to address this problem within its short-term scientific strategy.

The influence of national attitudes on the use of radiotherapy in advanced and metastatic cancer, with particular reference to differences between the United Kingdom and the United States of America: implications for future studies

Recent publications have suggested significant variation in dose and number of fractions of radiotherapy given to palliate advanced and metastatic cancer. Four types of published study are considered: multicenter trials, retrospective studies, patterns of care studies, and surrogate studies. These suggest that there are significant differences in the characteristics of patients considered incurable, the aims and expectations of palliative treatment, the predicted survival of patients treated palliatively, and the influence of clinical trials. Future studies are proposed to confirm such variation.

The need for immediate monitoring of treatment parameters and uniform assessment of patient data in clinical trials. A quality control study of the EORTC Radiotherapy and Lung Cancer Cooperative Groups

A quality control study was performed during the EORTC phase III study 08844: radiotherapy combined with low dose cisplatin (cDDP) in inoperable non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Radiation alone (55 Gy, split course) was compared to radiotherapy with 30 mg/m2 cisplatin once a week and to radiotherapy with 6 mg/m2 cisplatin daily. The purpose of the control study was to check to which degree protocol guidelines were followed and to measure the extent of differences in assessment of tumour response, recurrence and toxicities between the individual institutes. A review team, consisting of a data manager, a diagnostic radiologist, a chest physician and two radiotherapists reviewed entry criteria, treatment data, tumour responses, recurrences and late toxicity of 177 patients (a total of 300 patients was required for the trial). Only departments which had entered more than 5% of this number of patients were visited. There was a 15% difference in T staging of the patients and a 17% discrepancy in N stage scoring between the review team and the local investigators. Radiotherapy field sizes were insufficient in 15% of the eligible patients during a period of the radiotherapy; in another 17% patients the tumour free margin was less than 1 cm. Radiation doses were incorrectly given to 7% of the patients. The given doses of cisplatin deviated in 10% of the patients treated with combined modalities. The interpretation of chest X-rays and computed tomography (CT) showed important differences in tumour response, tumour recurrence and late toxicity. From these data it is concluded that immediate checks can detect errors in treatments as planned at the local level and will make corrections possible at an early stage in multicentre studies. The quality of trial results will thus be improved. Uniform assessment of treatment outcome, tumour progression and forms of toxicity will lead to more sound trial conclusions.

Misadministration of prescribed radiation dose

During a course of radiation therapy treatments, an incident involving machine malfunction or human error can result in delivering a dose other than the prescribed daily dose of radiation. The process of correcting and documenting the misadministration of prescribed radiation dose led to the creation of a department policy that has proved to be a useful quality assurance tool. Explanation of the policy and the information form is given. Incidents involving misadministration of prescribed dose during 1988 and 1989 have been reviewed and the results are presented. This paper describes the specific categories used to classify misadministrations, the frequency of occurrence for certain types of errors, and constructive quality control measures implemented to avoid recurrence of such incidents.