The role of medical physicists in clinical trials: More than quality assurance

The role of medical physics experts in clinical trials: A guideline from the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics

The EFOMP working group on the Role of Medical Physics Experts (MPEs) in Clinical Trials was established in 2010, with experts from across Europe and different areas of medical physics. Their main aims were: (1) To develop a consensus guidance document for the work MPEs do in clinical trials across Europe. (2) Complement the work by American colleagues in AAPM TG 113 and guidance from National Member Organisations. (3) To cover external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, nuclear medicine, molecular radiotherapy, and imaging. This document outlines the main output from this working group. Giving guidance to MPEs, and indeed all Medical Physicists (MP) and MP trainees wishing to work in clinical trials. It also gives guidance to the wider multidisciplinary team, advising where MPEs must legally be involved, as well as highlighting areas where MPEs skills and expertise can really add value to clinical trials.

A Review on the Use of Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology Clinical Trials: Quality Assurance Strategies for Technical Validation

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) have been proposed in medical literature that exploit images in a quantitative way, going beyond the visual assessment by an imaging physician. These IBs can be used in the diagnosis, prognosis, and response assessment of several pathologies and are very often used for patient management pathways. In this respect, IBs to be used in clinical practice and clinical trials have a requirement to be precise, accurate, and reproducible. Due to limitations in imaging technology, an error can be associated with their value when considering the entire imaging chain, from data acquisition to data reconstruction and subsequent analysis. From this point of view, the use of IBs in clinical trials requires a broadening of the concept of quality assurance and this can be a challenge for the responsible medical physics experts (MPEs). Within this manuscript, we describe the concept of an IB, examine some examples of IBs currently employed in clinical practice/clinical trials and analyze the procedure that should be carried out to achieve better accuracy and reproducibility in their use. We anticipate that this narrative review, written by the components of the EFOMP working group on "the role of the MPEs in clinical trials"-imaging sub-group, can represent a valid reference material for MPEs approaching the subject.

The role of medical physicists in clinical trials across Europe

INTRODUCTION

The roles and responsibilities of medical physicists (MPs) are growing together with the evolving science and technology. The complexity of today's clinical trials requires the skills and knowledge of MPs for their safe and efficient implementation. However, it is unclear to what extent the skillsets offered by MPs are being exploited in clinical trials across Europe.

METHODS

The EFOMP Working Group on the role of Medical Physics Experts in Clinical Trials has designed a survey that targeted all 36 current National Member Organisations, receiving a response from 31 countries. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative queries regarding the involvement of MPs in trial design, setup, and coordination, either as trial team members or principal investigators.

RESULTS

The extent of MPs involvement in clinical trials greatly varies across European countries. The results showed disparities between the roles played by MPs in trial design, conduct or data processing. Similarly, differences among the 31 European countries that responded to the survey were found regarding the existence of national bodies responsible for trials or the available training offered to MPs. The role of principal investigator or co-investigator was reported by 12 countries (39%), a sign of efficient collaboration with medical doctors in designing and implementing clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Organisation of specific training courses and guideline development for clinical trial design and conduct would encourage the involvement of a larger number of MPs in all stages of trials across Europe, leading to a better standardisation of clinical practice.

The radiotherapy quality assurance gap among phase III cancer clinical trials

PURPOSE

Quality assurance (QA) practices improve the quality level of oncology trials by ensuring that the protocol is followed and the results are valid and reproducible. This study investigated the utilization of QA among randomized controlled trials that involve radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2020 for all phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). These trials were screened for RT-specific RCTs that had published primary trial results. Information regarding QA in each trial was collected from the study publications and trial protocol if available. Two individuals independently performed trial screening and data collection. Pearson's Chi-square tests analyses were used to assess factors that were associated with QA inclusion in RT trials.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs with RT as the primary intervention or as a mandatory component of the protocol were analyzed; the earliest was started in 1994 and one trial was still active though not recruiting. Twenty-nine (69%) trials mandated RT quality assurance (RTQA) practices as part of the trial protocol, with 19 (45%) trials requiring institutional credentialing. Twenty-one (50%) trials published protocol deviation outcomes. Clinical trials involving advanced radiation techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SRS, SBRT) did not include more RTQA than trials without these advanced techniques (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.55). Trials that reported protocol deviation outcomes were associated with mandating RTQA in their protocols as compared to trials that did not report these outcomes (100% vs. 38%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of RTQA utilization and transparency in RT clinical trials. It is imperative for RT trials to include increased QA for safe, consistent, and high-quality RT planning and delivery.