1
|
Capaldi DPI, Skinner LB, Pinkham DW, Zavgorodni S, Stafford O, Shirmohammad M, Matney JE, Dubrowski P, De Jean P, Grafil EM, Yu AS. A multi-institutional trial evaluating the use of an integrated quality assurance phantom for frameless single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1445166. [PMID: 39544300 PMCID: PMC11560902 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1445166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2024] [Accepted: 10/03/2024] [Indexed: 11/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Brain radiosurgery treatments require multiple quality-assurance (QA) procedures to ensure accurate and precise treatment delivery of ablative doses. As single-isocenter multitarget radiosurgery treatments become more popular for treating patients with multiple brain metastases, quantifying off-axis accuracy of linear accelerators is crucial. In this study, we developed a novel brain radiosurgery integrated phantom and validated this phantom at multiple institutions to enable radiosurgery QA with a single phantom to facilitate implementation of a frameless single-isocenter, multitarget radiosurgery program. The phantom combines multiple independent verification system tests including the Winston-Lutz test, off-axis accuracy evaluation (i.e., off-axis Winston-Lutz), as well as dosimetric measurements utilizing both point dose and film measurement. Methods and materials A novel 3D-printed phantom, coined OneIso, was designed with a movable insert which can switch between Winston-Lutz test targets and dose measurement without moving the phantom itself. In total, four phantoms were printed, and eight institutions participated in this study, which included both Varian TrueBeam (n=6) and Elekta Versa (n=2) linear accelerators. For off-axis Winston-Lutz measurements, a row of off-axis ball-bearings (BBs) was integrated into the OneIso. To quantify the spatial accuracy versus distance from isocenter, two-dimensional displacements were calculated between the planned and delivered BB locations relative to their respective MLC-defined field borders. For dose verification, brain radiosurgery clinical treatment plans previously treated were delivered at multiple cancer centers (six of eight centers). Radiochromic film and pinpoint ion chamber comparison measurements were obtained with OneIso. Results Dose verification performed using the OneIso phantom across the different centers were all within on average 3% agreement, for both film and point-dose measurements. OneIso identified a reduction in spatial accuracy further away from isocenter for all eight radiosurgery machines. Differences increased as distance from isocenter increased, exceeding recommended radiosurgery accuracy tolerances (<1mm) at different distances for each machine (2-7cm), indicating that the tolerance is machine-dependent. Conclusion OneIso provides a streamlined, single-setup workflow for single-isocenter multitarget frameless linac-based radiosurgery QA that can be easily translated to multiple institutions. Additionally, quantifying off-axis spatial discrepancies allows for determination of the maximum distance between targets and iso that meet single-isocenter multitarget radiosurgery program recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dante P. I. Capaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Comprehensive Cancer Centre, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Lawrie B. Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| | - Daniel W. Pinkham
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Sergei Zavgorodni
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, BC, Canada
| | - Olga Stafford
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center SutterHealth, Berkeley, CA, United States
| | - Maryam Shirmohammad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | - Jason E. Matney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Piotr Dubrowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| | - Paul De Jean
- Luca Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, United States
| | | | - Amy S. Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smith K, Ulin K, Knopp M, Kry S, Xiao Y, Rosen M, Michalski J, Iandoli M, Laurie F, Quigley J, Reifler H, Santiago J, Briggs K, Kirby S, Schmitter K, Prior F, Saltz J, Sharma A, Bishop-Jodoin M, Moni J, Cicchetti MG, FitzGerald TJ. Quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1015596. [PMID: 36776318 PMCID: PMC9911211 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1015596] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Accepted: 01/06/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koren Smith
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Kenneth Ulin
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Michael Knopp
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Ohio, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Stephan Kry
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ying Xiao
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Philadelphia, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Mark Rosen
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Philadelphia, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Jeff Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, MO, United States
| | - Matthew Iandoli
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Fran Laurie
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Jean Quigley
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Heather Reifler
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Juan Santiago
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Kathleen Briggs
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Shawn Kirby
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Kate Schmitter
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Fred Prior
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Joel Saltz
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, United States
| | - Ashish Sharma
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Maryann Bishop-Jodoin
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Janaki Moni
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - M. Giulia Cicchetti
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| | - Thomas J. FitzGerald
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Rhode Island, Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Chan Medical School, Lincoln, RI, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Manolova Sergieva K. Dosimetry Audit in Modern Radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.100941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
The clinical specialty of radiotherapy is an essential part of the multidisciplinary process of treatment of malignant neoplasms. Modern radiotherapy is a very complex process of treatment planning and delivery of radiation dose. Radiotherapy reached a very high degree of complexity and sophistication and expected to represent an added value for the cancer patients in terms of clinical outcomes and improved radiation protection. The concept of verifying the realized dose in the medical applications of ionizing radiation was introduced in the early 20th century shortly after the first application of X-rays for the treatment of cancer. Dosimetry audit identify areas for improvement and provide confidence in safety and efficacy, which are essential to creating a clinical environment of continuous development and improvement. Over the years, the audits have contributed to good dosimetry practice and accuracy of dose measurements in modern radiotherapy. Dosimetry audit ensures, that the correct therapeutic dose is delivered to the patients undergoing radiotherapy and play a key role in activities to create a good radiation protection and safety culture. Patient safety is of paramount importance to medical staff in radiotherapy centers and safety considerations are an element in all aspects of the day-to-day clinical activities.
Collapse
|
4
|
Nilsson M, Olafsdottir H, Alexandersson von Döbeln G, Villegas F, Gagliardi G, Hellström M, Wang QL, Johansson H, Gebski V, Hedberg J, Klevebro F, Markar S, Smyth E, Lagergren P, Al-Haidari G, Rekstad LC, Aahlin EK, Wallner B, Edholm D, Johansson J, Szabo E, Reynolds JV, Pramesh CS, Mummudi N, Joshi A, Ferri L, Wong RKS, O’Callaghan C, Lukovic J, Chan KKW, Leong T, Barbour A, Smithers M, Li Y, Kang X, Kong FM, Chao YK, Crosby T, Bruns C, van Laarhoven H, van Berge Henegouwen M, van Hillegersberg R, Rosati R, Piessen G, de Manzoni G, Lordick F. Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Versus Definitive Chemoradiotherapy With Salvage Surgery as Needed: The Study Protocol for the Randomized Controlled NEEDS Trial. Front Oncol 2022; 12:917961. [PMID: 35912196 PMCID: PMC9326032 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.917961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 06/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The globally dominant treatment with curative intent for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with subsequent esophagectomy. This multimodal treatment leads to around 60% overall 5-year survival, yet with impaired post-surgical quality of life. Observational studies indicate that curatively intended chemoradiotherapy, so-called definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) followed by surveillance of the primary tumor site and regional lymph node stations and surgery only when needed to ensure local tumor control, may lead to similar survival as nCRT with surgery, but with considerably less impairment of quality of life. This trial aims to demonstrate that dCRT, with selectively performed salvage esophagectomy only when needed to achieve locoregional tumor control, is non-inferior regarding overall survival, and superior regarding health-related quality of life (HRQOL), compared to nCRT followed by mandatory surgery, in patients with operable, locally advanced ESCC. Methods This is a pragmatic open-label, randomized controlled phase III, multicenter trial with non-inferiority design with regard to the primary endpoint overall survival and a superiority hypothesis for the experimental intervention dCRT with regard to the main secondary endpoint global HRQOL one year after randomization. The control intervention is nCRT followed by preplanned surgery and the experimental intervention is dCRT followed by surveillance and salvage esophagectomy only when needed to secure local tumor control. A target sample size of 1200 randomized patients is planned in order to reach 462 events (deaths) during follow-up. Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04460352.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Magnus Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- *Correspondence: Magnus Nilsson,
| | - Halla Olafsdottir
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Thoracic Oncology Center, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gabriella Alexandersson von Döbeln
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Thoracic Oncology Center, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Fernanda Villegas
- Section of Radiotherapy Physics and Engineering, Department of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Giovanna Gagliardi
- Section of Radiotherapy Physics and Engineering, Department of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Mats Hellström
- Center for Clinical Cancer Studies, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Qiao-Li Wang
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hemming Johansson
- Center for Clinical Cancer Studies, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Val Gebski
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jakob Hedberg
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Fredrik Klevebro
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Sheraz Markar
- Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Elizabeth Smyth
- Department of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Pernilla Lagergren
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Lars Cato Rekstad
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, St. Olav’s Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Eirik Kjus Aahlin
- Department of GI and HPB Surgery, University Hospital of Northern Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| | - Bengt Wallner
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - David Edholm
- Department of Surgery, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Jan Johansson
- Department of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Eva Szabo
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden
| | - John V. Reynolds
- Department of Surgery, Trinity St James’s Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland
| | - CS Pramesh
- Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Naveen Mummudi
- Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Amit Joshi
- Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Lorenzo Ferri
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Rebecca KS Wong
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Jelena Lukovic
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kelvin KW Chan
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Trevor Leong
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew Barbour
- Academy of Surgery, University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Mark Smithers
- Academy of Surgery, University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Yin Li
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaozheng Kang
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Feng-Ming Kong
- Thoracic Oncology Center, HKU Shenzhen Hospital, Hong Kong University Li Ka Shing Medical School, Shenzhen, China
| | - Yin-Kai Chao
- Department of thoracic surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linkou, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Tom Crosby
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Christiane Bruns
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Hanneke van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mark van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Riccardo Rosati
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Rafaele Hospital, Vita Salute University, Milan, Italy
| | - Guillaume Piessen
- Univ. Lille, CNRS, Inserm, CHU Lille, UMR9020-U1277 - CANTHER – Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, F-59000 Lille, France
| | | | - Florian Lordick
- University Cancer Center Leipzig, Leipzig University Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kron T, Fox C, Ebert MA, Thwaites D. Quality management in radiotherapy treatment delivery. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2022; 66:279-290. [PMID: 35243785 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2021] [Accepted: 10/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Radiation Oncology continues to rely on accurate delivery of radiation, in particular where patients can benefit from more modulated and hypofractioned treatments that can deliver higher dose to the target while optimising dose to normal structures. These deliveries are more complex, and the treatment units are more computerised, leading to a re-evaluation of quality assurance (QA) to test a larger range of options with more stringent criteria without becoming too time and resource consuming. This review explores how modern approaches of risk management and automation can be used to develop and maintain an effective and efficient QA programme. It considers various tools to control and guide radiation delivery including image guidance and motion management. Links with typical maintenance and repair activities are discussed, as well as patient-specific quality control activities. It is demonstrated that a quality management programme applied to treatment delivery can have an impact on individual patients but also on the quality of treatment techniques and future planning. Developing and customising a QA programme for treatment delivery is an important part of radiotherapy. Using modern multidisciplinary approaches can make this also a useful tool for department management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomas Kron
- Department of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Institute of Oncology, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Chris Fox
- Department of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Martin A Ebert
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,5D Clinics, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - David Thwaites
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Medical Physics Group, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine and Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hughes J, Lye JE, Kadeer F, Alves A, Shaw M, Supple J, Keehan S, Gibbons F, Lehmann J, Kron T. Calculation algorithms and penumbra: Underestimation of dose in organs at risk in dosimetry audits. Med Phys 2021; 48:6184-6197. [PMID: 34287963 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2020] [Revised: 06/27/2021] [Accepted: 07/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study is to investigate overdose to organs at risk (OARs) observed in dosimetry audits in Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms and Linear Boltzmann Transport Equation (LBTE) algorithms. The impact of penumbra modeling on OAR dose was assessed with the adjustment of MC modeling parameters and the clinical relevance of the audit cases was explored with a planning study of spine and head and neck (H&N) patient cases. METHODS Dosimetric audits performed by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS) of 43 anthropomorphic spine plans and 1318 C-shaped target plans compared the planned dose to doses measured with ion chamber, microdiamond, film, and ion chamber array. An MC EGSnrc model was created to simulate the C-shape target case. The electron cut-off energy Ecut(kinetic) was set at 500, 200, and 10 keV, and differences between 1 and 3 mm voxel were calculated. A planning study with 10 patient stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) spine plans and 10 patient H&N plans was calculated in both Acuros XB (AXB) v15.6.06 and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) v15.6.06. The patient contour was overridden to water as only the penumbral differences between the two different algorithms were under investigation. RESULTS The dosimetry audit results show that for the SBRT spine case, plans calculated in AXB are colder than what is measured in the spinal cord by 5%-10%. This was also observed for other audit cases where a C-shape target is wrapped around an OAR where the plans were colder by 3%-10%. Plans calculated with Monaco MC were colder than measurements by approximately 7% with the OAR surround by a C-shape target, but these differences were not noted in the SBRT spine case. Results from the clinical patient plans showed that the AXB was on average 7.4% colder than AAA when comparing the minimum dose in the spinal cord OAR. This average difference between AXB and AAA reduced to 4.5% when using the more clinically relevant metric of maximum dose in the spinal cord. For the H&N plans, AXB was cooler on average than AAA in the spinal cord OAR (1.1%), left parotid (1.7%), and right parotid (2.3%). The EGSnrc investigation also noted similar, but smaller differences. The beam penumbra modeled by Ecut(kinetic) = 500 keV was steeper than the beam penumbra modeled by Ecut(kinetic) = 10 keV as the full scatter is not accounted for, which resulted in less dose being calculated in a central OAR region where the penumbra contributes much of the dose. The dose difference when using 2.5 mm voxels of the center of the OAR between 500 and 10 keV was 3%, reducing to 1% between 200 and 10 keV. CONCLUSIONS Lack of full penumbral modeling due to approximations in the algorithms in MC based or LBTE algorithms are a contributing factor as to why these algorithms under-predict the dose to OAR when the treatment volume is wrapped around the OAR. The penumbra modeling approximations also contribute to AXB plans predicting colder doses than AAA in areas that are in the vicinity of beam penumbra. This effect is magnified in regions where there are many beam penumbras, for example in the spinal cord for spine SBRT cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Hughes
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia.,Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jessica Elizabeth Lye
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia.,Physical Sciences, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness Centre, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
| | - Fayz Kadeer
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew Alves
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia
| | - Maddison Shaw
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia.,Applied Sciences Physics Department, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jeremy Supple
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephanie Keehan
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia.,Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Francis Gibbons
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Yallambie, Victoria, Australia.,Physical Sciences, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, Queensland, Australia
| | - Joerg Lehmann
- Applied Sciences Physics Department, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.,Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Tomas Kron
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Applied Sciences Physics Department, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Taprogge J, Wadsley J, Miles E, Flux GD. Recommendations for Multicentre Clinical Trials Involving Dosimetry for Molecular Radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:131-136. [PMID: 33342617 PMCID: PMC7818526 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2020] [Revised: 11/06/2020] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Multicentre clinical trials involving a dosimetry component are becoming more prevalent in molecular radiotherapy and are essential to generate the evidence to support individualised approaches to treatment planning and to ensure that sufficient patients are recruited to achieve the statistical significance required. Quality assurance programmes should be considered to support the standardisation required to achieve meaningful results. Trials should be designed to ensure that dosimetry results from image acquisition systems across centres are comparable by incorporating steps to standardise the methodologies used for the quantification of images and dosimetry. Furthermore, it is essential to assess the expertise and resources available at each participating site prior to trial commencement. A quality assurance plan should be drawn up and training provided if necessary. Standardisation of quantification and dosimetry methodologies used in a trial are essential to ensure that results from different centres may be collated. In addition, appropriate uncertainty analysis should be carried out to correct for differences in methodologies between centres. Recommendations are provided to support dosimetry studies based on the experience of several previous and ongoing multicentre trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Taprogge
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance (RTTQA) Group, Joint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHSFT, Sutton, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | | | - E Miles
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance (RTTQA) Group, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Northwood, UK
| | - G D Flux
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Joint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHSFT, Sutton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Storey CL, Hanna GG, Greystoke A. Practical implications to contemplate when considering radical therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2020; 123:28-35. [PMID: 33293673 PMCID: PMC7735214 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-01072-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The type of patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) selected for concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) varies between and within countries, with higher-volume centres treating patients with more co-morbidities and higher-stage disease. However, in spite of these disease characteristics, these patients have improved overall survival, suggesting that there are additional approaches that should be optimised and potentially standardised. This paper aims to review the current knowledge and best practices surrounding treatment for patients eligible for cCRT. Initially, this includes timely acquisition of the full diagnostic workup for the multidisciplinary team to comprehensively assess a patient for treatment, as well as imaging scans, patient history, lung function and genetic tests. Such information can provide prognostic information on how a patient will tolerate their cCRT regimen, and to perhaps limit the use of additional supportive care, such as steroids, which could impact on further treatments, such as immunotherapy. Furthermore, knowledge of the safety profile of individual double-platinum chemotherapy regimens and the technological advances in radiotherapy could aid in optimising patients for cCRT treatment, improving its efficacy whilst minimising its toxicities. Finally, providing patients with preparatory and ongoing support with input from dieticians, palliative care professionals, respiratory and care-of-the-elderly physicians during treatment may also help in more effective treatment delivery, allowing patients to achieve the maximum potential from their treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire L Storey
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Gerard G Hanna
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Alastair Greystoke
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
- Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wortman BG, Astreinidou E, Laman MS, van der Steen-Banasik EM, Lutgens LCHW, Westerveld H, Koppe F, Slot A, van den Berg HA, Nowee ME, Bijmolt S, Stam TC, Zwanenburg AG, Mens JWM, Jürgenliemk-Schulz IM, Snyers A, Gillham CM, Weidner N, Kommoss S, Vandecasteele K, Tomancova V, Creutzberg CL, Nout RA. Brachytherapy quality assurance in the PORTEC-4a trial for molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020; 155:160-166. [PMID: 33159971 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.10.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2020] [Revised: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 10/26/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The PORTEC-4a trial investigates molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment for endometrial cancer. The quality assurance programme included a dummy run for vaginal brachytherapy prior to site activation, and annual quality assurance to verify protocol adherence. Aims of this study were to evaluate vaginal brachytherapy quality and protocol adherence. METHODS For the dummy run, institutes were invited to create a brachytherapy plan on a provided CT-scan with the applicator in situ. For annual quality assurance, institutes provided data of one randomly selected brachytherapy case. A brachytherapy panel reviewed and scored the brachytherapy plans according to a checklist. RESULTS At the dummy run, 15 out of 21 (71.4%) institutes needed adjustments of delineation or planning. After adjustments, the mean dose at the vaginal apex (protocol: 100%; 7 Gy) decreased from 100.7% to 99.9% and range and standard deviation (SD) narrowed from 83.6-135.1 to 96.4-101.4 and 8.8 to 1.1, respectively. At annual quality assurance, 22 out of 27 (81.5%) cases had no or minor and 5 out of 27 (18.5%) major deviations. Most deviations were related to delineation, mean dose at the vaginal apex (98.0%, 74.7-114.2, SD 7.6) or reference volume length. CONCLUSIONS Most feedback during the brachytherapy quality assurance procedure of the PORTEC-4a trial was related to delineation, dose at the vaginal apex and the reference volume length. Annual quality assurance is essential to promote protocol compliance, ensuring high quality vaginal brachytherapy in all participating institutes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B G Wortman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands.
| | - E Astreinidou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands
| | - M S Laman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - H Westerveld
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F Koppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute Verbeeten, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - A Slot
- Radiotherapy Institute Friesland, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - H A van den Berg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - M E Nowee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Bijmolt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - T C Stam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Haaglanden Medical Centre, Leidschendam, The Netherlands
| | - A G Zwanenburg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | - J W M Mens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC-Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - A Snyers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - C M Gillham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin 6, Ireland
| | - N Weidner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University, Germany
| | - S Kommoss
- Department of Women's Health, Tübingen University Hospital, Germany
| | - K Vandecasteele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium
| | - V Tomancova
- Department of Clinical Oncology, General Teaching Hospital, First Medical School, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - C L Creutzberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands
| | - R A Nout
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Giaddui T, Geng H, Chen Q, Linnemann N, Radden M, Lee NY, Xia P, Xiao Y. Offline Quality Assurance for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans for NRG-HN001 Head and Neck Clinical Trial Using Knowledge-Based Planning. Adv Radiat Oncol 2020; 5:1342-1349. [PMID: 33305097 PMCID: PMC7718499 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.05.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2019] [Revised: 04/04/2020] [Accepted: 05/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to investigate whether a disease site-specific, multi-institutional knowledge based-planning (KBP) model can improve the quality of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for patients enrolled in the head and neck NRG-HN001clinical trial and to establish a threshold of improvements of treatment plans submitted to the clinical trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS Fifty treatment plans for patients enrolled in the NRG-HN001 clinical trial were used to build a KBP model; the model was then used to reoptimize 50 other plans. We compared the dosimetric parameters of the submitted and KBP reoptimized plans. We compared differences between KBP and submitted plans for single- and multi-institutional treatment plans. RESULTS Mean values for the dose received by 95% of the planning target volume (PTV_6996) and for the maximum dose (D0.03cc) of PTV_6996 were 0.5 Gy and 2.1 Gy higher in KBP plans than in the submitted plans, respectively. Mean values for D0.03cc to the brain stem, spinal cord, optic nerve_R, optic nerve_L, and chiasm were 2.5 Gy, 1.9 Gy, 6.4 Gy, 6.6 Gy, and 5.7 Gy lower in the KBP plans than in the submitted plans. Mean values for Dmean to parotid_R and parotid_L glands were 2.2 Gy and 3.8 Gy lower in KBP plans, respectively. In 33 out of 50 KBP plans, we observed improvements in sparing of at least 7 organs at risk (OARs) (brain stem, spinal cord, optic nerves (R & L), chiasm, and parotid glands [R & L]). A threshold of improvement of OARs sparing of 5% of the prescription dose was established for providing the quality assurance results back to the treating institution. CONCLUSIONS A disease site-specific, multi-institutional, clinical trial-based KBP model improved sparing of OARs in a large number of reoptimized plans submitted to the NRG-HN001 clinical trial, and the model is being used as an offline quality assurance tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tawfik Giaddui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Huaizhi Geng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Quan Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pennsylvania
| | - Nancy Linnemann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, NRG Oncology/Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Marsha Radden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, NRG Oncology/Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Nancy Y. Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Ping Xia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Ying Xiao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Taprogge J, Leek F, Flux GD. Physics aspects of setting up a multicenter clinical trial involving internal dosimetry of radioiodine treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer. THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ITALIAN ASSOCIATION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE (AIMN) [AND] THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIOPHARMACOLOGY (IAR), [AND] SECTION OF THE SOCIETY OF... 2019; 63:271-277. [PMID: 31315346 DOI: 10.23736/s1824-4785.19.03202-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/11/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Taprogge
- Joint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK -
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK -
| | - Francesca Leek
- Joint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Glenn D Flux
- Joint Department of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Cloak K, Jameson MG, Paneghel A, Wiltshire K, Kneebone A, Pearse M, Sidhom M, Tang C, Fraser‐Browne C, Holloway LC, Haworth A. Contour variation is a primary source of error when delivering post prostatectomy radiotherapy: Results of the Trans‐Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03 Radiotherapy Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) benchmarking exercise. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2019; 63:390-398. [DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12884] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2018] [Accepted: 03/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Kirrily Cloak
- South Western Sydney Clinical School University of NSW Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Cancer Therapy Centre Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Michael G Jameson
- South Western Sydney Clinical School University of NSW Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Cancer Therapy Centre Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | | | | | - Andrew Kneebone
- University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Royal North Shore Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | | | - Mark Sidhom
- South Western Sydney Clinical School University of NSW Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Cancer Therapy Centre Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Colin Tang
- Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Perth Western Australia Australia
| | | | - Lois C Holloway
- South Western Sydney Clinical School University of NSW Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Cancer Therapy Centre Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Kron T, Hardcastle N. SABR in clinical trials: what quality assurance (QA) is required and how can it be done? ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019. [DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1154/1/012014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
14
|
Kunos CA, Massett HA, Galassi A, Walker JL, Good MJ, Díaz LB, McCaskill-Stevens W. Leveraging National Cancer Institute Programmatic Collaboration for Uterine Cervix Cancer Patient Accrual in Puerto Rico. Front Oncol 2018; 8:102. [PMID: 29692980 PMCID: PMC5902541 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2018] [Accepted: 03/23/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Women in the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR) have a higher age-adjusted incidence rate for uterine cervix cancer than the U.S. mainland as well as substantial access and economic barriers to cancer care. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) funds a Minority/Underserved NCI Community Oncology Research Program in PR (PRNCORP) as part of a national network of community-based health-care systems to conduct multisite cancer clinical trials in diverse populations. Participation by the PRNCORP in NCI’s uterine cervix cancer clinical trials, however, has remained limited. This study reports on the findings of an NCI site visit in PR to assess barriers impeding site activation and accrual to its sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials. Qualitative, semi-structured individual, and group interviews were conducted at six PRNCORP-affiliated locations to ascertain: long-term trial accrual objectives; key stakeholders in PR that address uterine cervix cancer care; key challenges or barriers to activating and to enrolling patients in NCI uterine cervix cancer treatment trials; and resources, policies, or procedures in place or needed on the island to support NCI-sponsored clinical trials. An NCI-sponsored uterine cervix cancer radiation–chemotherapy intervention clinical trial (NCT02466971), already activated on the island, served as a test case to identify relevant patient accrual and site barriers. The site visit identified five key barriers to accrual: (1) lack of central personnel to coordinate referrals for treatment plans, medical tests, and medical imaging across the island’s clinical trial access points; (2) patient insurance coverage; (3) lack of a coordinated brachytherapy schedule at San Juan-centric service providers; (4) limited credentialed radiotherapy machines island-wide; and (5) too few radiology medical physicists tasked to credential trial-specified positron emission tomography scanners island-wide. PR offers a unique opportunity to study overarching and tactical strategies for improving accrual to NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials. Interview findings support adding and re-tasking personnel for coordinated trial-eligible patient referral, accrual, and treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles A Kunos
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Holly A Massett
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Annette Galassi
- Center for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Joan L Walker
- Gynecologic Oncology Section, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Marge J Good
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Luis Báez Díaz
- Minority/Underserved NCI Community Oncology Research Program, San Juan, PR, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Lehmann J, Alves A, Dunn L, Shaw M, Kenny J, Keehan S, Supple J, Gibbons F, Manktelow S, Oliver C, Kron T, Williams I, Lye J. Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018; 6:5-11. [PMID: 33458381 PMCID: PMC7807562 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2017] [Revised: 03/14/2018] [Accepted: 03/14/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joerg Lehmann
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics A28, University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
- School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Andrew Alves
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Leon Dunn
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Maddison Shaw
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - John Kenny
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Stephanie Keehan
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Jeremy Supple
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Francis Gibbons
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Sophie Manktelow
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Chris Oliver
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Tomas Kron
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Ivan Williams
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Jessica Lye
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
The TRENDY multi-center randomized trial on hepatocellular carcinoma – Trial QA including automated treatment planning and benchmark-case results. Radiother Oncol 2017; 125:507-513. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2017] [Revised: 09/07/2017] [Accepted: 09/09/2017] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
17
|
Wills L, Maggs R, Lewis G, Jones G, Nixon L, Staffurth J, Crosby T. Quality assurance of the SCOPE 1 trial in oesophageal radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:179. [PMID: 29141663 PMCID: PMC5688711 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0916-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2017] [Accepted: 11/02/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucy Wills
- Department of Medical Physics, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
- National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) Group, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
| | - Rhydian Maggs
- Department of Medical Physics, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
- National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) Group, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
| | - Geraint Lewis
- Department of Medical Physics, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
- National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) Group, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
| | - Gareth Jones
- Department of Medical Physics, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
- National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) Group, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
| | - Lisette Nixon
- Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 1YS UK
| | - John Staffurth
- School of Medicine, Cardiff University, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, CF14 4XN UK
- National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) Group, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
| | - Tom Crosby
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
| | - on behalf of the SCOPE 1 trial management group and collaborators
- Department of Medical Physics, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
- Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 1YS UK
- School of Medicine, Cardiff University, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, CF14 4XN UK
- National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) Group, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, CF14 2TL UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Miri N, Lehmann J, Legge K, Zwan BJ, Vial P, Greer PB. Remote dosimetric auditing for intensity modulated radiotherapy: A pilot study. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2017.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
19
|
Crosby T, Hurt CN, Falk S, Gollins S, Staffurth J, Ray R, Bridgewater JA, Geh JI, Cunningham D, Blazeby J, Roy R, Maughan T, Griffiths G, Mukherjee S. Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCOPE-1: a phase II/III randomised trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy +/- cetuximab in oesophageal cancer. Br J Cancer 2017; 116:709-716. [PMID: 28196063 PMCID: PMC5355926 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2016] [Revised: 01/03/2017] [Accepted: 01/16/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The SCOPE-1 study tested the role of adding cetuximab to conventional definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), and demonstrated greater toxicity and worse survival outcomes. We present the long-term outcomes and patterns of recurrence. METHODS SCOPE-1 was a phase II/III trial in which patients were randomised to cisplatin 60 mg m-2 (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg m-2 bd (days 1-21) for four cycles +/- cetuximab 400 mg m-2 day 1 then by 250 mg m-2 weekly. Radiotherapy consisted of 50 Gy/25# given concurrently with cycles 3 and 4. Recruitment was between February 2008 and February 2012, when the IDMC recommended closure on the basis of futility. RESULTS About 258 patients (dCRT=129; dCRT+cetuximab (dCRT+C)=129) were recruited from 36 centres. About 72.9% (n=188) had squamous cell histology. The median follow-up (IQR) was 46.2 (35.9-48.3) months for surviving patients. The median overall survival (OS; months; 95% CI) was 34.5 (24.7-42.3) in dCRT and 24.7 (18.6-31.3) in dCRT+C (hazard ratio (HR)=1.25, 95% CIs: 0.93-1.69, P=0.137). Median progression-free survival (PFS; months; 95% CI) was 24.1 (15.3-29.9) and 15.9 (10.7-20.8) months, respectively (HR=1.28, 95% CIs: 0.94-1.75; P=0.114). On multivariable analysis only earlier stage, full-dose RT, and higher cisplatin dose intensity were associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS The mature analysis demonstrates that the dCRT regimen used in the study provided useful survival outcomes despite its use in patients who were largely unfit for surgery or who had inoperable disease. Given the competing risk of systemic and local failure, future studies should continue to focus on enhancing local control as well as optimising systemic therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Crosby
- Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK
| | - C N Hurt
- Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK
| | - S Falk
- Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol BS2 8ED, UK
| | - S Gollins
- North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre, Conwy and Denbighshire NHS Trust, Rhyl LL18 5UJ, UK
| | - J Staffurth
- Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK
| | - R Ray
- Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK
| | - J A Bridgewater
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - J I Geh
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham B15 2GW, UK
| | - D Cunningham
- The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London SM2 5PT, UK
| | - J Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - R Roy
- Diana Princess of Wales Hospital, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, Grimsby DN33 2BA, UK
| | - T Maughan
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK
| | - G Griffiths
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - S Mukherjee
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Beichel RR, Van Tol M, Ulrich EJ, Bauer C, Chang T, Plichta KA, Smith BJ, Sunderland JJ, Graham MM, Sonka M, Buatti JM. Semiautomated segmentation of head and neck cancers in 18F-FDG PET scans: A just-enough-interaction approach. Med Phys 2017; 43:2948-2964. [PMID: 27277044 PMCID: PMC4874930 DOI: 10.1118/1.4948679] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this work was to develop, validate, and compare a highly computer-aided method for the segmentation of hot lesions in head and neck 18F-FDG PET scans. Methods: A semiautomated segmentation method was developed, which transforms the segmentation problem into a graph-based optimization problem. For this purpose, a graph structure around a user-provided approximate lesion centerpoint is constructed and a suitable cost function is derived based on local image statistics. To handle frequently occurring situations that are ambiguous (e.g., lesions adjacent to each other versus lesion with inhomogeneous uptake), several segmentation modes are introduced that adapt the behavior of the base algorithm accordingly. In addition, the authors present approaches for the efficient interactive local and global refinement of initial segmentations that are based on the “just-enough-interaction” principle. For method validation, 60 PET/CT scans from 59 different subjects with 230 head and neck lesions were utilized. All patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A detailed comparison with the current clinically relevant standard manual segmentation approach was performed based on 2760 segmentations produced by three experts. Results: Segmentation accuracy measured by the Dice coefficient of the proposed semiautomated and standard manual segmentation approach was 0.766 and 0.764, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2145). However, the intra- and interoperator standard deviations were significantly lower for the semiautomated method. In addition, the proposed method was found to be significantly faster and resulted in significantly higher intra- and interoperator segmentation agreement when compared to the manual segmentation approach. Conclusions: Lack of consistency in tumor definition is a critical barrier for radiation treatment targeting as well as for response assessment in clinical trials and in clinical oncology decision-making. The properties of the authors approach make it well suited for applications in image-guided radiation oncology, response assessment, or treatment outcome prediction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reinhard R Beichel
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242; The Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242; and Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Markus Van Tol
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 and The Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Ethan J Ulrich
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 and The Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Christian Bauer
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 and The Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Tangel Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Kristin A Plichta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Brian J Smith
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - John J Sunderland
- Department of Radiology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Michael M Graham
- Department of Radiology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - Milan Sonka
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242; Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242; and The Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| | - John M Buatti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 and The Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Patient-related quality assurance with different combinations of treatment planning systems, techniques, and machines : A multi-institutional survey. Strahlenther Onkol 2016; 193:46-54. [PMID: 27812732 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-016-1064-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2016] [Accepted: 10/06/2016] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This project compares the different patient-related quality assurance systems for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques currently used in the central Germany area with an independent measuring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS The participating institutions generated 21 treatment plans with different combinations of treatment planning systems (TPS) and linear accelerators (LINAC) for the QUASIMODO (Quality ASsurance of Intensity MODulated radiation Oncology) patient model. The plans were exposed to the ArcCHECK measuring system (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA). The dose distributions were analyzed using the corresponding software and a point dose measured at the isocenter with an ionization chamber. RESULTS According to the generally used criteria of a 10 % threshold, 3 % difference, and 3 mm distance, the majority of plans investigated showed a gamma index exceeding 95 %. Only one plan did not fulfill the criteria and three of the plans did not comply with the commonly accepted tolerance level of ±3 % in point dose measurement. CONCLUSION Using only one of the two examined methods for patient-related quality assurance is not sufficiently significant in all cases.
Collapse
|
22
|
Moran JM, Feng M, Benedetti LA, Marsh R, Griffith KA, Matuszak MM, Hess M, McMullen M, Fisher JH, Nurushev T, Grubb M, Gardner S, Nielsen D, Jagsi R, Hayman JA, Pierce LJ. Development of a model web-based system to support a statewide quality consortium in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2016; 7:e205-e213. [PMID: 28196607 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2016] [Revised: 09/23/2016] [Accepted: 10/10/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE A database in which patient data are compiled allows analytic opportunities for continuous improvements in treatment quality and comparative effectiveness research. We describe the development of a novel, web-based system that supports the collection of complex radiation treatment planning information from centers that use diverse techniques, software, and hardware for radiation oncology care in a statewide quality collaborative, the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). METHODS AND MATERIALS The MROQC database seeks to enable assessment of physician- and patient-reported outcomes and quality improvement as a function of treatment planning and delivery techniques for breast and lung cancer patients. We created tools to collect anonymized data based on all plans. RESULTS The MROQC system representing 24 institutions has been successfully deployed in the state of Michigan. Since 2012, dose-volume histogram and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine-radiation therapy plan data and information on simulation, planning, and delivery techniques have been collected. Audits indicated >90% accurate data submission and spurred refinements to data collection methodology. CONCLUSIONS This model web-based system captures detailed, high-quality radiation therapy dosimetry data along with patient- and physician-reported outcomes and clinical data for a radiation therapy collaborative quality initiative. The collaborative nature of the project has been integral to its success. Our methodology can be applied to setting up analogous consortiums and databases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean M Moran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| | - Mary Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Lisa A Benedetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Robin Marsh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Martha M Matuszak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Michael Hess
- School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew McMullen
- Radiation Oncology, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ypsilanti, Michigan
| | - Jennifer H Fisher
- Johnson Family Center for Cancer Care, Mercy Health Partners, Muskegon, Michigan
| | | | - Margaret Grubb
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Stephen Gardner
- Radiation Oncology Department, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Daniel Nielsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Lori J Pierce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Al-Hallaq HA, Chmura SJ, Salama JK, Lowenstein JR, McNulty S, Galvin JM, Followill DS, Robinson CG, Pisansky TM, Winter KA, White JR, Xiao Y, Matuszak MM. Benchmark Credentialing Results for NRG-BR001: The First National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Multiple Metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 97:155-163. [PMID: 27843033 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.09.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2016] [Revised: 09/01/2016] [Accepted: 09/20/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The NRG-BR001 trial is the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial to treat multiple (range 2-4) extracranial metastases with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Benchmark credentialing is required to ensure adherence to this complex protocol, in particular, for metastases in close proximity. The present report summarizes the dosimetric results and approval rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS The benchmark used anonymized data from a patient with bilateral adrenal metastases, separated by <5 cm of normal tissue. Because the planning target volume (PTV) overlaps with organs at risk (OARs), institutions must use the planning priority guidelines to balance PTV coverage (45 Gy in 3 fractions) against OAR sparing. Submitted plans were processed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core and assessed by the protocol co-chairs by comparing the doses to targets, OARs, and conformity metrics using nonparametric tests. RESULTS Of 63 benchmarks submitted through October 2015, 94% were approved, with 51% approved at the first attempt. Most used volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) (78%), a single plan for both PTVs (90%), and prioritized the PTV over the stomach (75%). The median dose to 95% of the volume was 44.8 ± 1.0 Gy and 44.9 ± 1.0 Gy for the right and left PTV, respectively. The median dose to 0.03 cm3 was 14.2 ± 2.2 Gy to the spinal cord and 46.5 ± 3.1 Gy to the stomach. Plans that spared the stomach significantly reduced the dose to the left PTV and stomach. Conformity metrics were significantly better for single plans that simultaneously treated both PTVs with VMAT, intensity modulated radiation therapy, or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy compared with separate plans. No significant differences existed in the dose at 2 cm from the PTVs. CONCLUSIONS Although most plans used VMAT, the range of conformity and dose falloff was large. The decision to prioritize either OARs or PTV coverage varied considerably, suggesting that the toxicity outcomes in the trial could be affected. Several benchmarks met the dose-volume histogram metrics but produced unacceptable plans owing to low conformity. Dissemination of a frequently-asked-questions document improved the approval rate at the first attempt. Benchmark credentialing was found to be a valuable tool for educating institutions about the protocol requirements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Steven J Chmura
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Jessica R Lowenstein
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) Houston, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Susan McNulty
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) PHILADELPHIA RT, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - James M Galvin
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) PHILADELPHIA RT, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - David S Followill
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) Houston, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | - Kathryn A Winter
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Ying Xiao
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) PHILADELPHIA RT, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Eaton DJ, Bolton S, Thomas RAS, Clark CH. Inter-departmental dosimetry audits - development of methods and lessons learned. J Med Phys 2015; 40:183-9. [PMID: 26865753 PMCID: PMC4728888 DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.170791] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2015] [Revised: 08/05/2015] [Accepted: 08/05/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
External dosimetry audits give confidence in the safe and accurate delivery of radiotherapy. In the United Kingdom, such audits have been performed for almost 30 years. From the start, they included clinically relevant conditions, as well as reference machine output. Recently, national audits have tested new or complex techniques, but these methods are then used in regional audits by a peer-to-peer approach. This local approach builds up the radiotherapy community, facilitates communication, and brings synergy to medical physics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J. Eaton
- Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Hospital, London, UK
| | - Steve Bolton
- Inter-departmental Audit Group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, UK
- Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Catharine H. Clark
- Radiation Dosimetry Group, National Physical Laboratory, London, UK
- Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Independent Phantom Irradiation Is Both Necessary and Cost Effective for Clinical Trial Credentialing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 92:501-3. [PMID: 26068481 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2014] [Revised: 01/12/2015] [Accepted: 01/13/2015] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
26
|
|