PURPOSE: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 95-17 was a Phase I/II trial to evaluate multicatheter brachytherapy as the sole method of adjuvant breast radiotherapy for Stage I/II breast carcinoma after breast-conserving surgery. Low- or high-dose-rate sources were allowed. Dose prescription and treatment evaluation were based on recommendations in the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), Report 58 and included the parameters mean central dose (MCD), average peripheral dose, dose homogeneity index (DHI), and the dimensions of the low- and high-dose regions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three levels of quality assurance were implemented: (1) credentialing of institutions was required before entering patients into the study; (2) rapid review of each treatment plan was conducted before treatment; and (3) retrospective review was performed by the Radiological Physics Center in conjunction with the study chairman and RTOG dosimetry staff. RESULTS: Credentialing focused on the accuracy of dose calculation algorithm and compliance with protocol guidelines. Rapid review was designed to identify and correct deviations from the protocol before treatment. The retrospective review involved recalculation of dosimetry parameters and review of dose distributions to evaluate the treatment. Specifying both central and peripheral doses resulted in uniform dose distributions, with a mean dose homogeneity index of 0.83 +/- 0.06. CONCLUSIONS: Vigorous quality assurance resulted in a high-quality study with few deviations; only 4 of 100 patients were judged as representing minor variations from protocol, and no patient was judged as representing major deviation. This study should be considered a model for quality assurance of future trials.
PURPOSE: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 95-17 was a Phase I/II trial to evaluate multicatheter brachytherapy as the sole method of adjuvant breast radiotherapy for Stage I/II breast carcinoma after breast-conserving surgery. Low- or high-dose-rate sources were allowed. Dose prescription and treatment evaluation were based on recommendations in the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), Report 58 and included the parameters mean central dose (MCD), average peripheral dose, dose homogeneity index (DHI), and the dimensions of the low- and high-dose regions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three levels of quality assurance were implemented: (1) credentialing of institutions was required before entering patients into the study; (2) rapid review of each treatment plan was conducted before treatment; and (3) retrospective review was performed by the Radiological Physics Center in conjunction with the study chairman and RTOG dosimetry staff. RESULTS: Credentialing focused on the accuracy of dose calculation algorithm and compliance with protocol guidelines. Rapid review was designed to identify and correct deviations from the protocol before treatment. The retrospective review involved recalculation of dosimetry parameters and review of dose distributions to evaluate the treatment. Specifying both central and peripheral doses resulted in uniform dose distributions, with a mean dose homogeneity index of 0.83 +/- 0.06. CONCLUSIONS: Vigorous quality assurance resulted in a high-quality study with few deviations; only 4 of 100 patients were judged as representing minor variations from protocol, and no patient was judged as representing major deviation. This study should be considered a model for quality assurance of future trials.
Authors: G J Kutcher; L Coia; M Gillin; W F Hanson; S Leibel; R J Morton; J R Palta; J A Purdy; L E Reinstein; G K Svensson Journal: Med Phys Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: F Vicini; J White; G Gustafson; R C Matter; D H Clarke; G Edmundson; A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1993-10-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B Fisher; C Redmond; R Poisson; R Margolese; N Wolmark; L Wickerham; E Fisher; M Deutsch; R Caplan; Y Pilch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: U Veronesi; R Saccozzi; M Del Vecchio; A Banfi; C Clemente; M De Lena; G Gallus; M Greco; A Luini; E Marubini; G Muscolino; F Rilke; B Salvadori; A Zecchini; R Zucali Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1981-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
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
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
Authors: Julia White; Kathryn Winter; Robert R Kuske; John S Bolton; Douglas W Arthur; Troy Scroggins; Rachel A Rabinovitch; Tracy Kelly; Leonard M Toonkel; Frank A Vicini; Beryl McCormick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christina Skourou; P Jack Hoopes; Summer L Gibbs-Strauss; David J Gladstone; Rendall Strawbridge; Keith D Paulsen Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: Geoffrey S Ibbott; David S Followill; H Andrea Molineu; Jessica R Lowenstein; Paola E Alvarez; Joye E Roll Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008 Impact factor: 7.038