INTRODUCTION: The phase III EORTC 22033-26033/NCIC CE5 intergroup trial compares 50.4 Gy radiotherapy with up-front temozolomide in previously untreated low-grade glioma. We describe the digital EORTC individual case review (ICR) performed to evaluate protocol radiotherapy (RT) compliance. METHODS:Fifty-eight institutions were asked to submit 1-2 randomly selected cases. Digital ICR datasets were uploaded to the EORTC server and accessed by three central reviewers. Twenty-seven parameters were analysed including volume delineation, treatment planning, organ at risk (OAR) dosimetry and verification. Consensus reviews were collated and summary statistics calculated. RESULTS:Fifty-seven of seventy-two requested datasets from forty-eight institutions were technically usable. 31/57 received a major deviation for at least one section. Relocation accuracy was according to protocol in 45. Just over 30% had acceptable target volumes. OAR contours were missing in an average of 25% of cases. Up to one-third of those present were incorrectly drawn while dosimetry was largely protocol compliant. Beam energy was acceptable in 97% and 48 patients had per protocol beam arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: Digital RT plan submission and review within the EORTC 22033-26033 ICR provide a solid foundation for future quality assurance procedures. Strict evaluation resulted in overall grades of minor and major deviation for 37% and 32%, respectively.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The phase III EORTC 22033-26033/NCIC CE5 intergroup trial compares 50.4 Gy radiotherapy with up-front temozolomide in previously untreated low-grade glioma. We describe the digital EORTC individual case review (ICR) performed to evaluate protocol radiotherapy (RT) compliance. METHODS: Fifty-eight institutions were asked to submit 1-2 randomly selected cases. Digital ICR datasets were uploaded to the EORTC server and accessed by three central reviewers. Twenty-seven parameters were analysed including volume delineation, treatment planning, organ at risk (OAR) dosimetry and verification. Consensus reviews were collated and summary statistics calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-seven of seventy-two requested datasets from forty-eight institutions were technically usable. 31/57 received a major deviation for at least one section. Relocation accuracy was according to protocol in 45. Just over 30% had acceptable target volumes. OAR contours were missing in an average of 25% of cases. Up to one-third of those present were incorrectly drawn while dosimetry was largely protocol compliant. Beam energy was acceptable in 97% and 48 patients had per protocol beam arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: Digital RT plan submission and review within the EORTC 22033-26033 ICR provide a solid foundation for future quality assurance procedures. Strict evaluation resulted in overall grades of minor and major deviation for 37% and 32%, respectively.
Authors: Roland Goldbrunner; Maximilian Ruge; Martin Kocher; Carolin Weiss Lucas; Norbert Galldiks; Stefan Grau Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 5.594
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: André N Abrunhosa-Branquinho; Raquel Bar-Deroma; Sandra Collette; Enrico Clementel; Yan Liu; Coen W Hurkmans; Loïc Feuvret; Karen Van Beek; Martin van den Bent; Brigitta G Baumert; Damien C Weber Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stefan Dietzsch; Annett Braesigk; Clemens Seidel; Julia Remmele; Ralf Kitzing; Tina Schlender; Martin Mynarek; Dirk Geismar; Karolina Jablonska; Rudolf Schwarz; Montserrat Pazos; Marc Walser; Silke Frick; Kristin Gurtner; Christiane Matuschek; Semi Ben Harrabi; Albrecht Glück; Victor Lewitzki; Karin Dieckmann; Martin Benesch; Nicolas U Gerber; Stefan Rutkowski; Beate Timmermann; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Haoyu Zhong; Kuo Men; Jiazhou Wang; Johan van Soest; David Rosenthal; Andre Dekker; Zhen Zhang; Ying Xiao Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Brigitta G Baumert; Monika E Hegi; Martin J van den Bent; Andreas von Deimling; Thierry Gorlia; Khê Hoang-Xuan; Alba A Brandes; Guy Kantor; Martin J B Taphoorn; Mohamed Ben Hassel; Christian Hartmann; Gail Ryan; David Capper; Johan M Kros; Sebastian Kurscheid; Wolfgang Wick; Roelien Enting; Michele Reni; Brian Thiessen; Frederic Dhermain; Jacoline E Bromberg; Loic Feuvret; Jaap C Reijneveld; Olivier Chinot; Johanna M M Gijtenbeek; John P Rossiter; Nicolas Dif; Carmen Balana; Jose Bravo-Marques; Paul M Clement; Christine Marosi; Tzahala Tzuk-Shina; Robert A Nordal; Jeremy Rees; Denis Lacombe; Warren P Mason; Roger Stupp Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 54.433
Authors: Stefan Dietzsch; Annett Braesigk; Clemens Seidel; Julia Remmele; Ralf Kitzing; Tina Schlender; Martin Mynarek; Dirk Geismar; Karolina Jablonska; Rudolf Schwarz; Montserrat Pazos; Damien C Weber; Silke Frick; Kristin Gurtner; Christiane Matuschek; Semi Ben Harrabi; Albrecht Glück; Victor Lewitzki; Karin Dieckmann; Martin Benesch; Nicolas U Gerber; Denise Obrecht; Stefan Rutkowski; Beate Timmermann; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 3.621