Optimizing Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials: A TROG 08.03 RAVES Substudy
Creators
- 1. Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, New South Wales (Australia)
- 2. Royal North Shore Hospital, St Lenoards, New South Wales (Australia)
- 3. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria (Australia)
- 4. Auckland Hospital, Auckland (New Zealand)
- 5. Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales (Australia)
- 6. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia (Australia)
Description
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.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.029Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.029;
- PII
- S0360-3016(15)03184-3;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
- Journal Volume
- 93
- Journal Issue
- 5
- Journal Page Range
- p. 1045-1051
- ISSN
- 0360-3016
- CODEN
- IOBPD3
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United States
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 48093628
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- CLINICAL TRIALS; PATIENTS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION HAZARDS; RADIOTHERAPY; VIOLATIONS
- Descriptors DEC
- HAZARDS; HEALTH HAZARDS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; RADIOLOGY; TESTING; THERAPY
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2015 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.