Sarah Gwynne1,2, Gareth Jones2,3, Rhydian Maggs2,3, David Eaton4,5, Elizabeth Miles5, John Staffurth2,6, Lisette Nixon2,7, Ruby Ray6, Geraint Lewis2,3, Tom Crosby3, Emiliano Spezi2,8. 1. 1 South West Wales Cancer Centre, Swansea, UK. 2. 2 NISCHR Cardiff RTTQA Centre, Cardiff, UK. 3. 3 Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK. 4. 4 Radiotherapy Physics, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK. 5. 5 NCRI RTTQA Team, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK. 6. 6 Institute of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 7. 7 Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 8. 8 School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : We sought to develop a process that would allow us to perform a prospective review of outlining in trials using expert reviewers based in multiple centres. METHODS: : We implemented a specific information technology infrastructure and workflow that could serve all organizations involved in the radiotherapy quality assurance (RTQA) process. RESULTS: : Data were processed and packaged in the computational environment for radiotherapy research (CERR) binary format and securely transmitted to the expert reviewer at the designated remote organization. It was opened and reviewed using the distributed CERR-compiled application, and a standardized report was sent to the respective centre. Centres were expected to correct any unacceptable deviations and resubmit outlining for approval prior to commencing treatment. 75% of reviews were completed and fed back to centres within 3 working days. There were no delays in treatment start date. CONCLUSION: : Our distributed RTQA review approach provides a method of prospective outlining review at multiple centres, without compromising the quality, delaying the start of treatment or the need for significant additional infrastructure resources. Future progress in the area of prospective individual case review will need to be supported by additional resources for clinician time to undertake the reviews. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: Trial groups around the world have formulated different approaches to address the need for the prospective review of radiotherapy (RT) data with clinical trials, in line with available resources. We report a UK solution that has allowed the workload for outlining review to be distributed across a wider group of volunteer reviewers without the need for any additional infrastructure costs and has already been adopted within the UK RT trials community.
OBJECTIVE: : We sought to develop a process that would allow us to perform a prospective review of outlining in trials using expert reviewers based in multiple centres. METHODS: : We implemented a specific information technology infrastructure and workflow that could serve all organizations involved in the radiotherapy quality assurance (RTQA) process. RESULTS: : Data were processed and packaged in the computational environment for radiotherapy research (CERR) binary format and securely transmitted to the expert reviewer at the designated remote organization. It was opened and reviewed using the distributed CERR-compiled application, and a standardized report was sent to the respective centre. Centres were expected to correct any unacceptable deviations and resubmit outlining for approval prior to commencing treatment. 75% of reviews were completed and fed back to centres within 3 working days. There were no delays in treatment start date. CONCLUSION: : Our distributed RTQA review approach provides a method of prospective outlining review at multiple centres, without compromising the quality, delaying the start of treatment or the need for significant additional infrastructure resources. Future progress in the area of prospective individual case review will need to be supported by additional resources for clinician time to undertake the reviews. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: Trial groups around the world have formulated different approaches to address the need for the prospective review of radiotherapy (RT) data with clinical trials, in line with available resources. We report a UK solution that has allowed the workload for outlining review to be distributed across a wider group of volunteer reviewers without the need for any additional infrastructure costs and has already been adopted within the UK RT trials community.
Authors: Christos Melidis; Walther R Bosch; Joanna Izewska; Elena Fidarova; Eduardo Zubizarreta; Kenneth Ulin; Satoshi Ishikura; David Followill; James Galvin; Annette Haworth; Deidre Besuijen; Catharine H Clark; Clark H Clark; Elizabeth Miles; Edwin Aird; Damien C Weber; Coen W Hurkmans; Dirk Verellen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-12-01 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: A Fairchild; L Collette; C W Hurkmans; B Baumert; D C Weber; A Gulyban; P Poortmans Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Christopher H Crane; Kathryn Winter; William F Regine; Howard Safran; Tyvin A Rich; Walter Curran; Robert A Wolff; Christopher G Willett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tomas Skripcak; Claus Belka; Walter Bosch; Carsten Brink; Thomas Brunner; Volker Budach; Daniel Büttner; Jürgen Debus; Andre Dekker; Cai Grau; Sarah Gulliford; Coen Hurkmans; Uwe Just; Mechthild Krause; Philippe Lambin; Johannes A Langendijk; Rolf Lewensohn; Armin Lühr; Philippe Maingon; Michele Masucci; Maximilian Niyazi; Philip Poortmans; Monique Simon; Heinz Schmidberger; Emiliano Spezi; Martin Stuschke; Vincenzo Valentini; Marcel Verheij; Gillian Whitfield; Björn Zackrisson; Daniel Zips; Michael Baumann Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: S Gwynne; E Higgins; A Poon King; G Radhakrishna; L Wills; S Mukherjee; Maria Hawkins; G Jones; J Staffurth; T Crosby Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 3.481