PURPOSE: In the context of national calls for reorganizing cancer clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a 2-day workshop to examine challenges and opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) in clinical trial design. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants reviewed the current processes of clinical trial QA and noted the QA challenges presented by advanced technologies. The lessons learned from the radiotherapy QA programs of recent trials were discussed in detail. Four potential opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy QA were explored, including the use of normal tissue toxicity and tumor control metrics, biomarkers of radiation toxicity, new radiotherapy modalities such as proton beam therapy, and the international harmonization of clinical trial QA. RESULTS: Four recommendations were made: (1) to develop a tiered (and more efficient) system for radiotherapy QA and tailor the intensity of QA to the clinical trial objectives (tiers include general credentialing, trial-specific credentialing, and individual case review); (2) to establish a case QA repository; (3) to develop an evidence base for clinical trial QA and introduce innovative prospective trial designs to evaluate radiotherapy QA in clinical trials; and (4) to explore the feasibility of consolidating clinical trial QA in the United States. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy QA can affect clinical trial accrual, cost, outcomes, and generalizability. To achieve maximum benefit, QA programs must become more efficient and evidence-based.
PURPOSE: In the context of national calls for reorganizing cancer clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a 2-day workshop to examine challenges and opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) in clinical trial design. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants reviewed the current processes of clinical trial QA and noted the QA challenges presented by advanced technologies. The lessons learned from the radiotherapy QA programs of recent trials were discussed in detail. Four potential opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy QA were explored, including the use of normal tissue toxicity and tumor control metrics, biomarkers of radiation toxicity, new radiotherapy modalities such as proton beam therapy, and the international harmonization of clinical trial QA. RESULTS: Four recommendations were made: (1) to develop a tiered (and more efficient) system for radiotherapy QA and tailor the intensity of QA to the clinical trial objectives (tiers include general credentialing, trial-specific credentialing, and individual case review); (2) to establish a case QA repository; (3) to develop an evidence base for clinical trial QA and introduce innovative prospective trial designs to evaluate radiotherapy QA in clinical trials; and (4) to explore the feasibility of consolidating clinical trial QA in the United States. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy QA can affect clinical trial accrual, cost, outcomes, and generalizability. To achieve maximum benefit, QA programs must become more efficient and evidence-based.
Authors: M A Weiner; B Leventhal; M L Brecher; R B Marcus; A Cantor; P W Gieser; J L Ternberg; F G Behm; M D Wharam; A R Chauvenet Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Søren M Bentzen; Matthew Parliament; Joseph O Deasy; Adam Dicker; Walter J Curran; Jacqueline P Williams; Barry S Rosenstein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S M Bentzen; J Bernier; J B Davis; J C Horiot; G Garavaglia; J Chavaudra; K A Johansson; M Bolla Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jatinder R Palta; Jason A Efstathiou; Justin E Bekelman; Sasa Mutic; Carl R Bogardus; Todd R McNutt; Peter E Gabriel; Colleen A Lawton; Anthony L Zietman; Christopher M Rose Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-07-14
Authors: Geoffrey S Ibbott; W F Hanson; Elizabeth O'Meara; Robert R Kuske; Douglas Arthur; Rachel Rabinovitch; Julia White; Raymond M Wilenzick; Irene Harris; Ramesh C Tailor Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-12-01 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: Indrin J Chetty; Mary K Martel; David A Jaffray; Stanley H Benedict; Stephen M Hahn; Ross Berbeco; James Deye; Robert Jeraj; Brian Kavanagh; Sunil Krishnan; Nancy Lee; Daniel A Low; David Mankoff; Lawrence B Marks; Daniel Ollendorf; Harald Paganetti; Brian Ross; Ramon Alfredo C Siochi; Robert D Timmerman; John W Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas J FitzGerald; Maryann Bishop-Jodoin; David S Followill; James Galvin; Michael V Knopp; Jeff M Michalski; Mark A Rosen; Jeffrey D Bradley; Lalitha K Shankar; Fran Laurie; M Giulia Cicchetti; Janaki Moni; C Norman Coleman; James A Deye; Jacek Capala; Bhadrasain Vikram Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Andrea Molineu; James R Kerns; Austin M Faught; Jessie Y Huang; Kiley B Pulliam; Jackie Tonigan; Paola Alvarez; Francesco Stingo; David S Followill Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Erik Roelofs; Lucas Persoon; Sebastiaan Nijsten; Wolfgang Wiessler; André Dekker; Philippe Lambin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 6.280