Literature DB >> 26475066

Optimizing Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials: A TROG 08.03 RAVES Substudy.

Yuvnik Trada1, Andrew Kneebone2, Andrea Paneghel3, Maria Pearse4, Mark Sidhom5, Colin Tang6, Kirsty Wiltshire3, Annette Haworth3, Carol Fraser-Browne4, Jarad Martin7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore site- and clinician-level factors associated with protocol violations requiring real-time-review (RTR) resubmission in a multicenter clinical trial to help tailor future quality assurance (QA) protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RAVES (Radiation Therapy-Adjuvant vs Early Salvage) (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03) is a randomized trial comparing adjuvant with early salvage radiation therapy in men with positive surgical margins or pT3 disease after prostatectomy. Quality assurance in RAVES required each clinician and site to submit a credentialing dummy run (DR) and for each patient's radiation therapy plan to undergo external RTR before treatment. Prospectively defined major violations from trial protocol required remedy and resubmission. Site and clinician factors associated with RTR resubmission were examined using hierarchical modeling.
RESULTS: Data were collected from 171 consecutive patients, treated by 46 clinicians at 32 hospitals. There were 47 RTR resubmissions (27%) due to 65 major violations. The relative rate of resubmission decreased by 29% per year as the study progressed (odds ratio OR. 0.71, P=.02). The majority of resubmissions were due to contouring violations (39 of 65) and dosimetric violations (22 of 65). For each additional patient accrued, significant decreases in RTR resubmission were seen at both clinician level (OR 0.75, P=.02) and site level (OR 0.72, P=.01). The rate of resubmission due to dosimetric violations was only 1.6% after the first 5 patients. Use of IMRT was associated with lower rates of resubmission compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (OR 0.38, P=.05).
CONCLUSION: Several low- and high-risk factors that may assist with tailoring future clinical trial QA were identified. Because the real-time resubmission rate was largely independent of the credentialing exercise, some form of RTR QA is recommended. The greatest benefit from QA was derived early in trial activation and clinician experience. Crown
Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26475066     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  4 in total

1.  Credentialing of radiotherapy centres in Australasia for TROG 09.02 (Chisel), a Phase III clinical trial on stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy of early stage lung cancer.

Authors:  Tomas Kron; Brent Chesson; Nicholas Hardcastle; Melissa Crain; Natalie Clements; Mark Burns; David Ball
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Evaluating the utility of knowledge-based planning for clinical trials using the TROG 08.03 post prostatectomy radiation therapy planning data.

Authors:  Kirsten van Gysen; Andrew Kneebone; Andrew Le; Kenny Wu; Annette Haworth; Regina Bromley; George Hruby; James O'Toole; Jeremy Booth; Chris Brown; Maria Pearse; Mark Sidhom; Kirsty Wiltshire; Colin Tang; Thomas Eade
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-05-13

3.  Comparison Between Adjuvant and Early-Salvage Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer With Adverse Pathological Features.

Authors:  William L Hwang; Rahul D Tendulkar; Andrzej Niemierko; Shree Agrawal; Kevin L Stephans; Daniel E Spratt; Jason W Hearn; Bridget F Koontz; W Robert Lee; Jeff M Michalski; Thomas M Pisansky; Stanley L Liauw; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Pollack; Drew Moghanaki; Mitchell S Anscher; Robert B Den; Anthony L Zietman; Andrew J Stephenson; Jason A Efstathiou
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 31.777

4.  TROG 18.01 phase III randomised clinical trial of the Novel Integration of New prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation: NINJA study protocol.

Authors:  Jarad Martin; Paul Keall; Shankar Siva; Peter Greer; David Christie; Kevin Moore; Jason Dowling; David Pryor; Peter Chong; Nicholas McLeod; Avi Raman; James Lynam; Joanne Smart; Christopher Oldmeadow; Colin I Tang; Declan G Murphy; Jeremy Millar; Keen Hun Tai; Lois Holloway; Penny Reeves; Amy Hayden; Tee Lim; Tanya Holt; Mark Sidhom
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.