The Feasibility of Quality Assurance in the TOPGEAR International Phase 3 Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy for Gastric Cancer (an Intergroup Trial of the AGITG/TROG/NHMRC CTC/EORTC/CCTG).

PURPOSE: The TOPGEAR phase 3 trial hypothesized that adding preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) to perioperative chemotherapy will improve survival in patients with gastric cancer. Owing to the complexity of gastric irradiation, a comprehensive radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) program was implemented. Our objective is to describe the RTQA methods and outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RTQA was undertaken in real time before treatment for the first 5 patients randomized to CRT from each center. Once acceptable quality was achieved, RTQA was completed for one-third of subsequent cases. RTQA consisted of evaluating (1) clinical target volume and organ-at-risk contouring and (2) radiation therapy planning parameters. Protocol violations between high- (20+ patients enrolled) and low-volume centers were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: TOPGEAR enrolled 574 patients, of whom 286 were randomized to receive preoperative CRT and 203 (71%) were included for RTQA. Of these, 67 (33%) and 136 (67%) patients were from high- and low-volume centers, respectively. The initial RTQA pass rate was 72%. In total, 28% of cases required resubmission. In total, 200 of 203 cases (99%) passed RTQA before treatment. Cases from low-volume centers required resubmission more often (44/136 [33%] vs 13/67 [18%]; P = .078). There was no change in the proportion of cases requiring resubmission over time. Most cases requiring resubmission had multiple protocol violations. At least 1 aspect of the clinical target volume had to be adjusted in all cases. Inadequate coverage of the duodenum was most common (53% major violation, 25% minor violation). For the remaining cases, the resubmission process was triggered secondary to poor contour/plan quality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter trial, RTQA is feasible and effective in achieving high-quality treatment plans. Ongoing education should be performed to ensure consistent quality during the entire study period.

Vessel based delineation guidelines for the elective lymph node regions in breast cancer radiation therapy - PROCAB guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: A national project to improve the quality of breast radiation therapy was started, named PROCAB (PROject on CAncer of the Breast). One of the objectives was to reach a national consensus guideline for the delineation of the regional lymph node areas in breast radiation therapy. METHODS: The realization of the new guidelines was a step by step process that started with multiple expert meetings where the existing guidelines were analyzed and the delineations of the lymph node regions were performed together with a surgeon, specialized in the anatomy of the drainage of the breast. RESULTS: The delineation guidelines are vessel-based. Since the occurrence of pathological lymph nodes is typically around the veins, the cranial and caudal borders of all different nodal regions are based on a 5mm margin around the veins, except for the parasternal lymph node area. Compared to the existing guidelines there are some major changes. CONCLUSION: With this project a national as well as a European (ESTRO) consensus guideline for the delineation of the regional lymph node areas in breast RT is reached. The new delineation atlas is vessel-based and no longer field-based.

Does a central review platform improve the quality of radiotherapy for rectal cancer? Results of a national quality assurance project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quality assurance (QA) for radiation treatment has become a priority since poorly delivered radiotherapy can negatively influence patient outcome. Within a national project we evaluated the feasibility of a central review platform and its role in improving uniformity of clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in daily practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All Belgian radiotherapy departments were invited to participate and were asked to upload CTVs for rectal cancer treatment onto a secured server. These were centrally reviewed and feedback was given per e-mail. For each five consecutive patients per centre, the overlap parameter dice coefficient (DC) and the volumetric parameters volumetric ratio (RV) and commonly contoured volume (VCC) were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty departments submitted 1224 eligible cases of which 909 were modified (74.3%). There was a significant increase in RV and VCC between the first ten patients per centre and the others. This was not seen for DC. Statistical analysis did not show a further significant improvement in delineation over the entire review period. CONCLUSION: Central review was feasible and increased the uniformity in CTV delineation in the first ten rectal cancer patients per centre. The observations in this study can be used to optimize future QA initiatives.