PURPOSE: To report the impact of radiotherapy quality on outcome in a large international phase III trial evaluating radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus tirapazamine for advanced head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The protocol required interventional review of radiotherapy plans by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC). All plans and radiotherapy documentation underwent post-treatment review by the Trial Management Committee (TMC) for protocol compliance. Secondary review of noncompliant plans for predicted impact on tumor control was performed. Factors associated with poor protocol compliance were studied, and outcome data were analyzed in relation to protocol compliance and radiotherapy quality. RESULTS: At TMC review, 25.4% of the patients had noncompliant plans but none in which QARC-recommended changes had been made. At secondary review, 47% of noncompliant plans (12% overall) had deficiencies with a predicted major adverse impact on tumor control. Major deficiencies were unrelated to tumor subsite or to T or N stage (if N+), but were highly correlated with number of patients enrolled at the treatment center (< five patients, 29.8%; > or = 20 patients, 5.4%; P < .001). In patients who received at least 60 Gy, those with major deficiencies in their treatment plans (n = 87) had a markedly inferior outcome compared with those whose treatment was initially protocol compliant (n = 502): -2 years overall survival, 50% v 70%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.99; P < .001; and 2 years freedom from locoregional failure, 54% v 78%; HR, 2.37; P < .001, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the critical importance of radiotherapy quality on outcome of chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Centers treating only a few patients are the major source of quality problems.
PURPOSE: To report the impact of radiotherapy quality on outcome in a large international phase III trial evaluating radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus tirapazamine for advanced head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The protocol required interventional review of radiotherapy plans by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC). All plans and radiotherapy documentation underwent post-treatment review by the Trial Management Committee (TMC) for protocol compliance. Secondary review of noncompliant plans for predicted impact on tumor control was performed. Factors associated with poor protocol compliance were studied, and outcome data were analyzed in relation to protocol compliance and radiotherapy quality. RESULTS: At TMC review, 25.4% of the patients had noncompliant plans but none in which QARC-recommended changes had been made. At secondary review, 47% of noncompliant plans (12% overall) had deficiencies with a predicted major adverse impact on tumor control. Major deficiencies were unrelated to tumor subsite or to T or N stage (if N+), but were highly correlated with number of patients enrolled at the treatment center (< five patients, 29.8%; > or = 20 patients, 5.4%; P < .001). In patients who received at least 60 Gy, those with major deficiencies in their treatment plans (n = 87) had a markedly inferior outcome compared with those whose treatment was initially protocol compliant (n = 502): -2 years overall survival, 50% v 70%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.99; P < .001; and 2 years freedom from locoregional failure, 54% v 78%; HR, 2.37; P < .001, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the critical importance of radiotherapy quality on outcome of chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Centers treating only a few patients are the major source of quality problems.
Authors: Ross A Abrams; Kathryn A Winter; William F Regine; Howard Safran; John P Hoffman; Robert Lustig; Andre A Konski; Al B Benson; John S Macdonald; Tyvin A Rich; Christopher G Willett Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Z S Zumsteg; M Luu; S Kim; M Tighiouart; A Mita; K S Scher; D J Lu; S L Shiao; J Mallen-St Clair; A S Ho Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Fei-Fei Liu; Paul Okunieff; Eric J Bernhard; Helen B Stone; Stephen Yoo; C Norman Coleman; Bhadrasain Vikram; Martin Brown; John Buatti; Chandan Guha Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Musaddiq Awan; Steven Bedrick; Coen R N Rasch; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Christos Melidis; Walter R Bosch; Joanna Izewska; Elena Fidarova; Eduardo Zubizarreta; Satoshi Ishikura; David Followill; James Galvin; Ying Xiao; Martin A Ebert; Tomas Kron; Catharine H Clark; Elizabeth A Miles; Edwin G A Aird; Damien C Weber; Kenneth Ulin; Dirk Verellen; Coen W Hurkmans Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Evan J Wuthrick; Qiang Zhang; Mitchell Machtay; David I Rosenthal; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan; André Fortin; Craig L Silverman; Adam Raben; Harold E Kim; Eric M Horwitz; Nancy E Read; Jonathan Harris; Qian Wu; Quynh-Thu Le; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas J FitzGerald; Maryann Bishop-Jodoin; Fran Laurie; Elizabeth O'Meara; Christine Davis; Jeffrey Bogart; John Kalapurakal; Marilyn J Siegel; Bapsi Chakravarthy; Paul Okunieff; Bruce Haffty; Jeff Michalski; Kenneth Ulin; David S Followill; Stephen Kry; Michael Knopp; Jun Zhang; Don Rosen; Mark Rosen; Ying Xiao; Lawrence Schwartz; Janaki Moni; Maria Giulia Cicchetti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 7.038