J Kriz1, C Baues2, R Engenhart-Cabillic3, U Haverkamp1, K Herfart4, P Lukas5, A Plütschow6, H Schmidberger7, S Staar8, M Fuchs6, A Engert6, H T Eich9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, Gebäude 1 A, 48419, Muenster, Germany. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Bremen Mitte, Bremen, Germany. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, Gebäude 1 A, 48419, Muenster, Germany. hans.eich@ukmuenster.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As part of the foundation of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) in 1978, a central radiotherapy (RT) reference centre was established to evaluate and to improve the quality of treatment. During the study generations, the quality assurance programs (QAP) were continued and adapted to the demands of each study. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the results of the fifth study generation and to compare them to the previous findings. METHODS: With the start of the fourth GHSG study generation (HD10-12), a central prospective review of all diagnostic images was established to create an individual treatment plan for each early stage study patient. The quality of involved field RT was retrospectively evaluated by an expert panel of radiation oncologists. In the fifth study generation (HD13-15), the retrospective review of radiotherapy performed was refined and the results were compared with the findings of the fourth generation. RESULTS: The expert panel analyzed the RT planning and application of 1037 (28 %) patients (HD13 n = 465, HD14 n = 572). Simulation films were available in 85 % of cases and verification films in 87 %. RT was assessed as major violation in 46 % (HD13 = 38 %, HD14 = 52 %), minor violation in 9 % (HD13 = 9 %, HD14 = 9 %) and according to the protocol in 45 % (HD13 = 52 %, HD14 = 38 %). CONCLUSION: The value for QAP of RT within the GHSG trials is well known. Still there were several protocol violations. In the future, the QAP program has to be adapted to the requirements of "modern RT" in malignant lymphoma.
INTRODUCTION: As part of the foundation of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) in 1978, a central radiotherapy (RT) reference centre was established to evaluate and to improve the quality of treatment. During the study generations, the quality assurance programs (QAP) were continued and adapted to the demands of each study. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the results of the fifth study generation and to compare them to the previous findings. METHODS: With the start of the fourth GHSG study generation (HD10-12), a central prospective review of all diagnostic images was established to create an individual treatment plan for each early stage study patient. The quality of involved field RT was retrospectively evaluated by an expert panel of radiation oncologists. In the fifth study generation (HD13-15), the retrospective review of radiotherapy performed was refined and the results were compared with the findings of the fourth generation. RESULTS: The expert panel analyzed the RT planning and application of 1037 (28 %) patients (HD13 n = 465, HD14 n = 572). Simulation films were available in 85 % of cases and verification films in 87 %. RT was assessed as major violation in 46 % (HD13 = 38 %, HD14 = 52 %), minor violation in 9 % (HD13 = 9 %, HD14 = 9 %) and according to the protocol in 45 % (HD13 = 52 %, HD14 = 38 %). CONCLUSION: The value for QAP of RT within the GHSG trials is well known. Still there were several protocol violations. In the future, the QAP program has to be adapted to the requirements of "modern RT" in malignant lymphoma.
Authors: Berthe M P Aleman; Théodore Girinsky; Richard W M van der Maazen; Simon Strijk; Paul Meijnders; Roberto Bortolus; Manouk J J Olofsen-van Acht; Marnix L M Lybeert; Yolande Lievens; Houchingue Eghbali; Evert M Noordijk; Radka Tomsic; Jacobus H Meerwaldt; Philip M P Poortmans; Wilma G J M Smit; Antonella Pinna; Michel Henry-Amar; John M M Raemaekers Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jan Kriz; Gabriele Reinartz; Markus Dietlein; Carsten Kobe; Georg Kuhnert; Heinz Haverkamp; Uwe Haverkamp; Rita Engenhart-Cabillic; Klaus Herfarth; Peter Lukas; Heinz Schmidberger; Susanne Staar; Kira Hegerfeld; Christian Baues; Andreas Engert; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John M M Raemaekers; Marc P E André; Massimo Federico; Theodore Girinsky; Reman Oumedaly; Ercole Brusamolino; Pauline Brice; Christophe Fermé; Richard van der Maazen; Manuel Gotti; Reda Bouabdallah; Catherine J Sebban; Yolande Lievens; Allessandro Re; Aspasia Stamatoullas; Frank Morschhauser; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Elisabetta Abruzzese; Pierre Olivier; Rene-Olivier Casasnovas; Gustaaf van Imhoff; Tiana Raveloarivahy; Monica Bellei; Thierry van der Borght; Stephane Bardet; Annibale Versari; Martin Hutchings; Michel Meignan; Catherine Fortpied Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karolin Behringer; Helen Goergen; Felicitas Hitz; Josée M Zijlstra; Richard Greil; Jana Markova; Stephanie Sasse; Michael Fuchs; Max S Topp; Martin Soekler; Stephan Mathas; Julia Meissner; Martin Wilhelm; Peter Koch; Hans-Walter Lindemann; Enrico Schalk; Robert Semrau; Jan Kriz; Tom Vieler; Martin Bentz; Elisabeth Lange; Rolf Mahlberg; Andre Hassler; Martin Vogelhuber; Dennis Hahn; Jörg Mezger; Stefan W Krause; Nicole Skoetz; Boris Böll; Bastian von Tresckow; Volker Diehl; Michael Hallek; Peter Borchmann; Harald Stein; Hans Eich; Andreas Engert Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hans Theodor Eich; Volker Diehl; Helen Görgen; Thomas Pabst; Jana Markova; Jürgen Debus; Anthony Ho; Bernd Dörken; Andreas Rank; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Thomas Wiegel; Johann Hinrich Karstens; Richard Greil; Normann Willich; Heinz Schmidberger; Hartmut Döhner; Peter Borchmann; Hans-Konrad Müller-Hermelink; Rolf-Peter Müller; Andreas Engert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andreas Engert; Petra Schiller; Andreas Josting; Richard Herrmann; Peter Koch; Markus Sieber; Friederike Boissevain; Maike De Wit; Jorg Mezger; Eckhart Duhmke; Normann Willich; Rolf-Peter Muller; Bernhard F Schmidt; Helmut Renner; Hans Konrad Muller-Hermelink; Beate Pfistner; Jurgen Wolf; Dirk Hasenclever; Markus Loffler; Volker Diehl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hans Theodor Eich; Susanne Staar; Axel Gossmann; Katja Hansemann; Roman Skripnitchenko; Martin Kocher; Robert Semrau; Andreas Engert; Andreas Josting; Jeremy Franklin; Barbara Krug; Volker Diehl; Rolf-Peter Müller Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John Radford; Tim Illidge; Nicholas Counsell; Barry Hancock; Ruth Pettengell; Peter Johnson; Jennie Wimperis; Dominic Culligan; Bilyana Popova; Paul Smith; Andrew McMillan; Alison Brownell; Anton Kruger; Andrew Lister; Peter Hoskin; Michael O'Doherty; Sally Barrington Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Baues; R Semrau; U S Gaipl; P J Bröckelmann; J Rosenbrock; A Engert; S Marnitz Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: B S Hoppe; C E Hill-Kayser; Y D Tseng; S Flampouri; H M Elmongy; O Cahlon; N P Mendenhall; A Maity; L A McGee; J P Plastaras Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 32.976