Prospective review of radiotherapy trials through implementation of standardized multicentre workflow and IT infrastructure

A Randomised Phase II Trial to Evaluate the Feasibility of Radiotherapy Dose Escalation, Facilitated by Intensity-Modulated Arc Radiotherapy Techniques, in High-Risk Neuroblastoma

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

For high-risk neuroblastoma, planning target volume coverage is often compromised to respect adjacent kidney tolerance. This trial investigated whether intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy techniques (IMAT) could facilitate dose escalation better than conventional techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children with high-risk abdominal neuroblastoma referred for radiotherapy to the primary tumour site and involved regional lymph nodes were randomised to receive either standard dose (21 Gy in 14 fractions) or escalated dose (36 Gy in 24 fractions) radiotherapy. Dual planning with both a conventional anterior-posterior parallel opposed pair radiotherapy technique and an IMAT technique was performed. The quality of target volume and organ-at-risk delineation, and dosimetric plans, were externally reviewed. Dosimetric parameters were used to judge the superior technique for treatment. This feasibility trial was not powered to detect improvement in outcome with dose escalation.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2020, 50 patients were randomised and dual-planned. The IMAT technique was judged more favourable in 48 patients. In all patients randomised to receive 36 Gy, IMAT would have permitted delivery of the full dose (median D50% 36.0 Gy, inter-quartile range 36.0-36.1 Gy) to the target volume, whereas dose compromise would have been required with conventional planning (median D50% 35.6 Gy, inter-quartile range 28.7-35.9 Gy).

CONCLUSION

IMAT facilitates safe dose escalation to 36 Gy in patients receiving radiotherapy for neuroblastoma. The value of dose escalation is now being evaluated in a current prospective phase III randomised trial.

Evaluation of the impact of teaching on delineation variation during a virtual stereotactic ablative radiotherapy contouring workshop

Introduction:

Variation in delineation of target volumes/organs at risk (OARs) is well recognised in radiotherapy and may be reduced by several methods including teaching. We evaluated the impact of teaching on contouring variation for thoracic/pelvic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) during a virtual contouring workshop.

Materials and methods:

Target volume/OAR contours produced by workshop participants for three cases were evaluated against reference contours using DICE similarity coefficient (DSC) and line domain error (LDE) metrics. Pre- and post-workshop DSC results were compared using Wilcoxon signed ranks test to determine the impact of teaching during the workshop.

Results:

Of 50 workshop participants, paired pre- and post-workshop contours were available for 21 (42%), 20 (40%) and 22 (44%) participants for primary lung cancer, pelvic bone metastasis and pelvic node metastasis cases, respectively. Statistically significant improvements post-workshop in median DSC and LDE results were observed for 6 (50%) and 7 (58%) of 12 structures, respectively, although the magnitude of DSC/LDE improvement was modest in most cases. An increase in median DSC post-workshop ≥0·05 was only observed for GTVbone, IGTVlung and SacralPlex, and reduction in median LDE > 1 mm was only observed for GTVbone, CTVbone and SacralPlex. Post-workshop, median DSC values were >0·7 for 75% of structures. For 92% of the structures, post-workshop contours were considered to be acceptable or within acceptable variation following review by the workshop faculty.

Conclusions:

This study has demonstrated that virtual SABR contouring training is feasible and was associated with some improvements in contouring variation for multiple target volumes/OARs.

Dosimetric Multicenter Planning Comparison Studies for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: Methodology and Future Perspectives

In this review a summary of the published literature pertaining to the stereotactic body radiation therapy multiplanning comparison, data sharing strategies, and implementation of benchmark planning cases to improve the skills and knowledge of the participating centers was investigated. A total of 30 full-text articles were included. The studies were subdivided in 3 categories: multiplanning studies on dosimetric variability, planning harmonization before clinical trials, and technical and methodologic studies. The methodology used in the studies were critically analyzed to find common and original elements with the pros and cons. Multicenter planning studies have played a key role in improving treatment plan harmonization, treatment plan compliance, and even clinical practices. This review has highlighted that some fundamental steps should be taken to transform a simple treatment planning comparison study into a potential credentialing method for stereotactic body radiation therapy accreditation. In particular, prescription and general requirements should always be well defined; data analysis should be performed with independent dose volume histogram or dose calculations; quality score indices should be constructed; feedback and correction strategies should be provided; and a simple web-based collaboration platform should be used. The results reported clearly showed that a crowd-based replanning approach is a viable method for achieving harmonization and standardization of treatment planning among centers using different technologies.

Plan quality improvement by DVH sharing and planner's experience: Results of a SBRT multicentric planning study on prostate

PURPOSE

To evaluate, in a multi-institutional context, the role of Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) sharing in order to achieve higher plan quality, to harmonize prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) plans and to assess if the planner's experience in SBRT could lead to lower dose at organs at risk (OARs).

METHODS

During the first phase five patients enrolled for prostate SBRT were planned by multiple physicists according to common protocol. The prescription dose was 35 Gy in 5 fractions. Dosimetric parameters, modulation index (MIt), plan parameters, and planner experience level (EL) were statistically analyzed. During the second phase median DVHs from all centers were shared and physicists replanned one patient of the five, aiming at inter-planner harmonization and further OARs sparing. Data were summarized by Spearman-correlogram (p < 0.05) and boxplots. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the re-plans to the original plans.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight SBRT plans from 13 centers were evaluated. EL correlated with modulation of plan parameters and reduction of OARs doses, such as volume receiving 28 Gy of rectum (rectum-V28Gy), rectum-V32Gy, and bladder-V30Gy. The re-plans showed significant reduced variability in rectum-V28Gy and increased PTV dose homogeneity. No significant difference in plan complexity metrics and plan parameters between plans and re-plans were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Planner's experience in prostate SBRT was correlated with dosimetric parameters. Sharing median DVHs reduced variability among centers whilst keeping the same level of plan complexity. SBRT planning skills can benefit from a replanning phase after sharing DVHs from multiple centers, improving plan quality and concordance among centers.

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.

Driving developments in UK oesophageal radiotherapy through the SCOPE trials

BACKGROUND

The SCOPE trials (SCOPE 1, NeoSCOPE and SCOPE 2) have been the backbone of oesophageal RT trials in the UK. Many changes in oesophageal RT techniques have taken place in this time. The SCOPE trials have, in addition to adopting these new techniques, been influential in aiding centres with their implementation. We discuss the progress made through the SCOPE trials and include details of a questionnaire sent to participating centres. to establish the role that trial participation played in RT changes in their centre.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to 47 centres, 27 were returned.

RESULTS

100% of centres stated their departmental protocol for TVD was based on the relevant SCOPE trial protocol. 4DCT use has increased from 42 to 71%. Type B planning algorithms, mandated in the NeoSCOPE trial, were used in 79.9% pre NeoSCOPE and now in 83.3%. 12.5% of centres were using a stomach filling protocol pre NeoSCOPE, now risen to 50%. CBCT was mandated for IGRT in the NeoSCOPE trial. 66.7% used this routinely pre NeoSCOPE/SCOPE 2 which has risen to 87.5% in the survey.

CONCLUSION

The results of the questionnaires show how participation in national oesophageal RT trials has led to the adoption of newer RT techniques in UK centres, leading to better patient care.

Surgical treatment of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers

Abundant research

Quality assurance of the SCOPE 1 trial in oesophageal radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

SCOPE 1 was the first UK based multi-centre trial involving radiotherapy of the oesophagus. A comprehensive radiotherapy trials quality assurance programme was launched with two main aims: 1. To assist centres, where needed, to adapt their radiotherapy techniques in order to achieve protocol compliance and thereby enable their participation in the trial. 2. To support the trial's clinical outcomes by ensuring the consistent planning and delivery of radiotherapy across all participating centres.

METHODS

A detailed information package was provided and centres were required to complete a benchmark case in which the delineated target volumes and organs at risk, dose distribution and completion of a plan assessment form were assessed prior to recruiting patients into the trial. Upon recruiting, the quality assurance (QA) programme continued to monitor the outlining and planning of radiotherapy treatments. Completion of a questionnaire was requested in order to gather information about each centre's equipment and techniques relating to their trial participation and to assess the impact of the trial nationally on standard practice for radiotherapy of the oesophagus. During the trial, advice was available for individual planning issues, and was circulated amongst the SCOPE 1 community in response to common areas of concern using bulletins.

RESULTS

36 centres were supported through QA processes to enable their participation in SCOPE1. We discuss the issues which have arisen throughout this process and present details of the benchmark case solutions, centre questionnaires and on-trial protocol compliance. The range of submitted benchmark case GTV volumes was 29.8-67.8cm3; and PTV volumes 221.9-513.3 cm3. For the dose distributions associated with these volumes, the percentage volume of the lungs receiving 20Gy (V20Gy) ranged from 20.4 to 33.5%. Similarly, heart V40Gy ranged from 16.1 to 33.0%. Incidence of incorrect outlining of OAR volumes increased from 50% of centres at benchmark case, to 64% on trial. Sixty-five percent of centres, who returned the trial questionnaire, stated that their standard practice had changed as a result of their participation in the SCOPE1 trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCOPE 1 QA programme outcomes lend support to the trial's clinical conclusions. The range of patient planning outcomes for the benchmark case indicated, at the outset of the trial, the significant degree of variation present in UK oesophageal radiotherapy planning outcomes, despite the presence of a protocol. This supports the case for increasingly detailed definition of practice by means of consensus protocols, training and peer review. The incidence of minor inconsistencies of technique highlights the potential for improved QA systems and the need for sufficient resource for this to be addressed within future trials. As indicated in questionnaire responses, the QA exercise as a whole has contributed to greater consistency of oesophageal radiotherapy in the UK via the adoption into standard practice of elements of the protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The SCOPE1 trial is an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, ISRCTN47718479 .