OBJECTIVE: This study is an analysis of the pre-trial quality assurance (QA) exercises submitted by clinicians from radiotherapy (RT) centres across Europe and Canada to qualify for participation in the CONVERT trial. METHODS: QA exercises submitted by 64 clinicians at 64 RT centres were included in this analysis. The exercises included the completion of a trial-specific questionnaire and submission of a treatment plan, for both trial arms, for a patient fitting the eligibility criteria of the trial. This article describes the QA programme set up for the CONVERT trial and identifies deviations from the trial protocol. Patient eligibility, disease and critical structure outlining and treatment planning technique were assessed. RESULTS: Results from QA trial-specific questionnaires received between February 2008 and September 2011, returned as part of the QA exercise, indicated that the majority of centres (70.3%) were using 6-MV photons and type B treatment planning system algorithms (57.8%). 90.6% of clinicians assessed submitted data for patients who fitted the eligibility criteria for the trial. There were inconsistencies in outlining of gross tumour volume (GTV) and organs at risk, mainly heart and oesophagus, and in the use of margins around the GTV. CONCLUSION: Such a QA programme helps to ensure that centres conform to trial protocol and should reduce inconsistencies in RT planning that may confound the results of the CONVERT trial. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Few studies reporting pre-trial QA have been published to date. This article outlines the importance of such a QA programme in the context of multicentre Phase III studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study is an analysis of the pre-trial quality assurance (QA) exercises submitted by clinicians from radiotherapy (RT) centres across Europe and Canada to qualify for participation in the CONVERT trial. METHODS: QA exercises submitted by 64 clinicians at 64 RT centres were included in this analysis. The exercises included the completion of a trial-specific questionnaire and submission of a treatment plan, for both trial arms, for a patient fitting the eligibility criteria of the trial. This article describes the QA programme set up for the CONVERT trial and identifies deviations from the trial protocol. Patient eligibility, disease and critical structure outlining and treatment planning technique were assessed. RESULTS: Results from QA trial-specific questionnaires received between February 2008 and September 2011, returned as part of the QA exercise, indicated that the majority of centres (70.3%) were using 6-MV photons and type B treatment planning system algorithms (57.8%). 90.6% of clinicians assessed submitted data for patients who fitted the eligibility criteria for the trial. There were inconsistencies in outlining of gross tumour volume (GTV) and organs at risk, mainly heart and oesophagus, and in the use of margins around the GTV. CONCLUSION: Such a QA programme helps to ensure that centres conform to trial protocol and should reduce inconsistencies in RT planning that may confound the results of the CONVERT trial. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Few studies reporting pre-trial QA have been published to date. This article outlines the importance of such a QA programme in the context of multicentre Phase III studies.
Authors: A Fairchild; R Bar-Deroma; L Collette; K Haustermans; C Hurkmans; D Lacombe; P Maingon; P Poortmans; M Tomsej; D C Weber; V Gregoire Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Damien C Weber; Philip M P Poortmans; Coen W Hurkmans; Edwin Aird; Akos Gulyban; Alysa Fairchild Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.280
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: B E Johnson; J D Bridges; M Sobczeck; J Gray; R I Linnoila; A F Gazdar; L Hankins; S M Steinberg; M Edison; J N Frame; H Pass; J Nesbitt; D Holden; J L Mulshine; E Glatstein; D C Ihde Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N A Bayman; H Sheikh; B Kularatne; P Lorigan; F Blackhall; N Thatcher; C Faivre-Finn Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2008-08-03 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: N Murray; P Coy; J L Pater; I Hodson; A Arnold; B C Zee; D Payne; E C Kostashuk; W K Evans; P Dixon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S S Donaldson; M Torrey; M P Link; A Glicksman; L Gilula; F Laurie; J Manning; J Neff; W Reinus; E Thompson; J J Shuster Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mareike K Thompson; Philip Poortmans; Anthony J Chalmers; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Emma Hall; Robert A Huddart; Yolande Lievens; David Sebag-Montefiore; Charlotte E Coles Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Corinne Faivre-Finn; Sally Falk; Linda Ashcroft; Michelle Bewley; Paul Lorigan; Elena Wilson; Nicki Groom; Michael Snee; Pierre Fournel; Felipe Cardenal; Andrea Bezjak; Fiona Blackhall Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 2.692