Literature DB >> 10738126

Clinical impact of dosimetry quality assurance programmes assessed by radiobiological modelling of data from the thermoluminescent dosimetry study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

S M Bentzen1, J Bernier, J B Davis, J C Horiot, G Garavaglia, J Chavaudra, K A Johansson, M Bolla.   

Abstract

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Radiotherapy Group initiated its mailed thermoluminescence dosimetry (TLD) programme in 1986. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of variations in beam output detected in the period 1993 to 1996. A total of 140 beam outputs were checked (26 for cobalt-60 units and 114 for linear accelerators) in 35 centres. Clinical dose-response data for tumour control and normal tissue morbidity were used to assess the variation in clinical outcome resulting from variability in beam output. For 75 checked beams with nominal accelerating potentials (n. a.p.) of 6 MV or less the mean ratio, +/- standard deviation (S.D.) of measured to stated output was 1.004+/-0.020. For 65 beams with n. a.p. of 8 MV or more, the ratio was 1.009+/-0.021. Even with this relatively high level of precision, broad distributions of estimated tumour control or normal tissue morbidity were found. In the 10% of the beams with the most pronounced underdosage, the loss in tumour control probability was estimated at 7-8 percentage points. Likewise, in the 10% of the beams with the most pronounced overdosage, the increase in mild/moderate morbidity was 19-22 percentage points. For severe morbidity the same beams raised the estimated incidence of severe complications from 5% to 9-10%. An estimation of the loss of uncomplicated cure probability was about 1% for both high and low energy beams. Sequential mailings considerably improved the uniformity of clinical outcome. We conclude that small deviations in beam output may lead to clinically important variations in outcome. Substantial reductions in the variation between measured and stated output can be achieved by sequential mailings. Mailed TLD checks should be an integral part of a continuously ongoing quality assurance activity in radiotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10738126     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00336-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  10 in total

1.  Randomized controlled trials in health technology assessment: overkill or overdue?

Authors:  Søren M Bentzen
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 6.280

2.  Redesigning radiotherapy quality assurance: opportunities to develop an efficient, evidence-based system to support clinical trials--report of the National Cancer Institute Work Group on Radiotherapy Quality Assurance.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; James A Deye; Bhadrasain Vikram; Soren M Bentzen; Deborah Bruner; Walter J Curran; James Dignam; Jason A Efstathiou; T J FitzGerald; Coen Hurkmans; Geoffrey S Ibbott; J Jack Lee; Thomas E Merchant; Jeff Michalski; Jatinder R Palta; Richard Simon; Randal K Ten Haken; Robert Timmerman; Sean Tunis; C Norman Coleman; James Purdy
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 3.  Radiotherapy protocol deviations and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of cooperative group clinical trials.

Authors:  Nitin Ohri; Xinglei Shen; Adam P Dicker; Laura A Doyle; Amy S Harrison; Timothy N Showalter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Radiotherapy quality assurance review for a multi-center randomized trial of locally advanced esophageal cancer: the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) trial 0303.

Authors:  Naoko Sanuki; Satoshi Ishikura; Masayuki Shinoda; Yoshinori Ito; Kazushige Hayakawa; Nobutoshi Ando
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  Does quality of radiation therapy predict outcomes of multicenter cooperative group trials? A literature review.

Authors:  Alysa Fairchild; William Straube; Fran Laurie; David Followill
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 6.  Quality assurance for clinical trials.

Authors:  Geoffrey S Ibbott; Annette Haworth; David S Followill
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  Offline Quality Assurance for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans for NRG-HN001 Head and Neck Clinical Trial Using Knowledge-Based Planning.

Authors:  Tawfik Giaddui; Huaizhi Geng; Quan Chen; Nancy Linnemann; Marsha Radden; Nancy Y Lee; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-05-22

Review 8.  Current Status of Radiopharmaceutical Therapy.

Authors:  Sara St James; Bryan Bednarz; Stanley Benedict; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; Yuni Dewaraja; Eric Frey; Robert Hobbs; Joseph Grudzinski; Emilie Roncali; George Sgouros; Jacek Capala; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 9.  Clinical trials update of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Group.

Authors:  Emiel J T Rutgers; Philip Meijnen; Hervé Bonnefoi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2004-06-16       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Quantification of the uncertainties within the radiotherapy dosimetry chain and their impact on tumour control.

Authors:  Matthew Bolt; Catharine H Clark; Andrew Nisbet; Tao Chen
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-06-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.