The Importance of Quality Assurance in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials have been the center of progress in modern medicine. In oncology, we are fortunate to have a structure in place through the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). The NCTN provides the infrastructure and a forum for scientific discussion to develop clinical concepts for trial design. The NCTN also provides a network group structure to administer trials for successful trial management and outcome analyses. There are many important aspects to trial design and conduct. Modern trials need to ensure appropriate trial conduct and secure data management processes. Of equal importance is the quality assurance of a clinical trial. If progress is to be made in oncology clinical medicine, investigators and patient care providers of service need to feel secure that trial data is complete, accurate, and well-controlled in order to be confident in trial analysis and move trial outcome results into daily practice. As our technology has matured, so has our need to apply technology in a uniform manner for appropriate interpretation of trial outcomes. In this article, we review the importance of quality assurance in clinical trials involving radiation therapy. We will include important aspects of institution and investigator credentialing for participation as well as ongoing processes to ensure that each trial is being managed in a compliant manner. We will provide examples of the importance of complete datasets to ensure study interpretation. We will describe how successful strategies for quality assurance in the past will support new initiatives moving forward.

Quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials.

Clinical trials have become the primary mechanism to validate process improvements in oncology clinical practice. Over the past two decades there have been considerable process improvements in the practice of radiation oncology within the structure of a modern department using advanced technology for patient care. Treatment planning is accomplished with volume definition including fusion of multiple series of diagnostic images into volumetric planning studies to optimize the definition of tumor and define the relationship of tumor to normal tissue. Daily treatment is validated by multiple tools of image guidance. Computer planning has been optimized and supported by the increasing use of artificial intelligence in treatment planning. Informatics technology has improved, and departments have become geographically transparent integrated through informatics bridges creating an economy of scale for the planning and execution of advanced technology radiation therapy. This serves to provide consistency in department habits and improve quality of patient care. Improvements in normal tissue sparing have further improved tolerance of treatment and allowed radiation oncologists to increase both daily and total dose to target. Radiation oncologists need to define a priori dose volume constraints to normal tissue as well as define how image guidance will be applied to each radiation treatment. These process improvements have enhanced the utility of radiation therapy in patient care and have made radiation therapy an attractive option for care in multiple primary disease settings. In this chapter we review how these changes have been applied to clinical practice and incorporated into clinical trials. We will discuss how the changes in clinical practice have improved the quality of clinical trials in radiation therapy. We will also identify what gaps remain and need to be addressed to offer further improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials and patient care.

Radiation Oncology: Future Vision for Quality Assurance and Data Management in Clinical Trials and Translational Science.

The future of radiation oncology is exceptionally strong as we are increasingly involved in nearly all oncology disease sites due to extraordinary advances in radiation oncology treatment management platforms and improvements in treatment execution. Due to our technology and consistent accuracy, compressed radiation oncology treatment strategies are becoming more commonplace secondary to our ability to successfully treat tumor targets with increased normal tissue avoidance. In many disease sites including the central nervous system, pulmonary parenchyma, liver, and other areas, our service is redefining the standards of care. Targeting of disease has improved due to advances in tumor imaging and application of integrated imaging datasets into sophisticated planning systems which can optimize volume driven plans created by talented personnel. Treatment times have significantly decreased due to volume driven arc therapy and positioning is secured by real time imaging and optical tracking. Normal tissue exclusion has permitted compressed treatment schedules making treatment more convenient for the patient. These changes require additional study to further optimize care. Because data exchange worldwide have evolved through digital platforms and prisms, images and radiation datasets worldwide can be shared/reviewed on a same day basis using established de-identification and anonymization methods. Data storage post-trial completion can co-exist with digital pathomic and radiomic information in a single database coupled with patient specific outcome information and serve to move our translational science forward with nimble query elements and artificial intelligence to ask better questions of the data we collect and collate. This will be important moving forward to validate our process improvements at an enterprise level and support our science. We have to be thorough and complete in our data acquisition processes, however if we remain disciplined in our data management plan, our field can grow further and become more successful generating new standards of care from validated datasets.

Quality assurance in radiation oncology.

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has a strong quality assurance (QA) program managed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC). This program consists of credentialing centers and providing real-time management of each case for protocol compliant target definition and radiation delivery. In the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP), the lack of an available, reliable online data platform has been a challenge and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) quality and excellence in radiotherapy and imaging for children and adolescents with cancer across Europe in clinical trials (QUARTET) program currently provides QA review for prospective clinical trials. The COG and SIOP are fully committed to a QA program that ensures uniform execution of protocol treatments and provides validity of the clinical data used for analysis.

Imaging and Data Acquisition in Clinical Trials for Radiation Therapy.

Cancer treatment evolves through oncology clinical trials. Cancer trials are multimodal and complex. Assuring high-quality data are available to answer not only study objectives but also questions not anticipated at study initiation is the role of quality assurance. The National Cancer Institute reorganized its cancer clinical trials program in 2014. The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) was formed and within it was established a Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Organization. This organization is Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group, consisting of 6 quality assurance centers that provide imaging and radiation therapy quality assurance for the NCTN. Sophisticated imaging is used for cancer diagnosis, treatment, and management as well as for image-driven technologies to plan and execute radiation treatment. Integration of imaging and radiation oncology data acquisition, review, management, and archive strategies are essential for trial compliance and future research. Lessons learned from previous trials are and provide evidence to support diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy data acquisition in NCTN trials.

Treatment outcomes of different prognostic groups of patients on cancer and leukemia group B trial 39801: induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy alone for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In Cancer and Leukemia Group B 39801, we evaluated whether induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiotherapy would result in improved survival and demonstrated no significant benefit from the addition of induction chemotherapy. The primary objective of this analysis was to dichotomize patients into prognostic groups using factors predictive of survival and to investigate whether induction chemotherapy was beneficial in either prognostic group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the impact on survival of the following factors: (>or=70 versus <70 years), gender, race, stage (IIIB versus IIIA), hemoglobin (hgb) (<13 versus >or=13 g/dl), performance status (PS) (1 versus 0), weight loss (>or=5% versus <5%), treatment arm, and the interaction between weight loss and hgb. RESULTS: Factors predictive of decreased survival were weight loss >or=5%, age >or=70 years, PS of 1, and hgb <13 g/dl (p < 0.05). Patients were classified as having >or=2 poor prognostic factors (n = 165) or or=2 versus patients with or=2 factors (HR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.63-1.17; p = 0.34) or

Processes for quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials.

Quality assurance in radiotherapy (RT) has been an integral aspect of cooperative group clinical trials since 1970. In early clinical trials, data acquisition was nonuniform and inconsistent and computational models for radiation dose calculation varied significantly. Process improvements developed for data acquisition, credentialing, and data management have provided the necessary infrastructure for uniform data. With continued improvement in the technology and delivery of RT, evaluation processes for target definition, RT planning, and execution undergo constant review. As we move to multimodality image-based definitions of target volumes for protocols, future clinical trials will require near real-time image analysis and feedback to field investigators. The ability of quality assurance centers to meet these real-time challenges with robust electronic interaction platforms for imaging acquisition, review, archiving, and quantitative review of volumetric RT plans will be the primary challenge for future successful clinical trials.

Radiation therapy toxicity to the skin.

Radiation therapy has been integral to cancer patient care. The skin is an intentional and unintentional target of therapy, and is sensitive to the volume of normal tissue in the radiation therapy treatment field, daily treatment dose (fractionation), and total treatment dose. We must understand the relationship of these factors to patient outcome as we move toward hypofractionation treatment strategies (radiosurgery). Chemotherapy agents and prescription medications may influence therapy-associated sequelae. Understanding this may prevent significant injury and discomfort. This article reviews established platforms of radiation therapy and sequelae associated with skin therapy. Interactions with other agents and possible predisposition to sequelae are reviewed. Skin cancer resulting from treatment and disease processes associated with possible limited outcome are also reviewed.

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy alone for regionally advanced unresectable stage III Non-small-cell lung cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B.

PURPOSE: Standard therapy for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer includes concomitant chemoradiotherapy. In Cancer and Leukemia Group B 39801, we evaluated whether induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiotherapy would result in improved survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1998 and May 2002, 366 patients were randomly assigned to arm A, which involved immediate concurrent chemoradiotherapy with carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 given weekly during 66 Gy of chest radiotherapy, or arm B, which involved two cycles of carboplatin AUC 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 administered every 21 days followed by identical chemoradiotherapy. The accrual goal was 360 patients. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of patients were female, 66% were male, and the median age was 63 years. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities during induction chemotherapy on arm B consisted mainly of neutropenia (18% and 20%, respectively). During concurrent chemoradiotherapy, there was no difference in severity of in-field toxicities of esophagitis (grade 3 and 4 were, respectively, 30% and 2% for arm A v 28% and 8% for arm B) and dyspnea (grade 3 and 4 were, respectively, 11% and 3% for arm A v 15% and 4% for arm B). Survival differences were not statistically significant (P = .3), with a median survival on arm A of 12 months (95% CI, 10 to 16 months) versus 14 months (95% CI, 11 to 16 months) on arm B and a 2-year survival of 29% (95% CI, 22% to 35%) and 31% (95% CI, 25% to 38%). Age, weight loss before therapy, and performance status were statistically significant predictive factors. CONCLUSION: The addition of induction chemotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy added toxicity and provided no survival benefit over concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The median survival achieved in each of the treatment groups is low, and the routine use of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel with simultaneous radiotherapy should be re-examined.

Analysis of axillary coverage during tangential radiation therapy to the breast.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the percent of the prescribed radiation dose to the breast delivered to the axillary tissue and to evaluate the volume of the axilla receiving 95% of the prescribed dose with normal and with high tangential fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computed tomographic scan images with 5-mm sections were retrospectively analyzed for 35 patients who had undergone three-dimensional (3D) planning for whole-breast radiation. The axillary nodal region was identified and divided into Levels I to III and Rotter's nodes (RN). Digitally reconstructed radiographs were created, and two plans were developed: (a) the standard clinical opposed tangential irradiation fields and (b) the high-tangential irradiation fields. Axillary coverage was examined by use of dose-volume histograms (DVH), and the average coverage for the four nodal groups was obtained. RESULTS: The data show that with the standard tangential irradiation fields, the average dose delivered to Levels I, II, III, and RN is 66% (standard deviation, or SD = 13%), 44% (SD = 18%), 31% (SD = 20%), and 70% (SD = 19%) of the prescribed dose, respectively. The coverage increases to 86% (SD = 9%), 71% (SD = 19%), 73% (SD = 17%), and 94% (SD = 8%) of the prescribed dose, respectively, for Levels I, II, III, and RN when the high tangential irradiation fields are used. 51% of Level I, 26% of Level II, and 15% of Level III receive 95% of the prescribed dose with normal tangents. The volume increases to 79%, 51%, and 49% of Levels I, II, and III, respectively, with high tangents. CONCLUSION: The tangential fields designed to treat only the breast do not adequately cover the axillary region and, therefore, cannot be relied upon for prophylactic therapy of the axilla. The high tangential irradiation fields increase the dosages received by the axillary region, but the average dosages received by the lower axillary regions are still less than 90% of the prescribed dose.