Radiotherapy quality assurance report from children's oncology group AHOD0031.

PURPOSE: A phase 3 trial assessing response-based therapy in intermediate-risk Hodgkin lymphoma mandated real-time central review of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT) and imaging records by a centralized review center to maximize protocol compliance. We report the impact of centralized radiation therapy review on protocol compliance. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Review of simulation films, port films, and dosimetry records was required before and after treatment. Records were reviewed by study-affiliated or review center-affiliated radiation oncologists. A deviation of 6% to 10% from protocol-specified dose was scored as "minor"; a deviation of >10% was "major." A volume deviation was scored as "minor" if margins were less than specified or "major" if fields transected disease-bearing areas. Interventional review and final compliance review scores were assigned to each radiation therapy case and compared. RESULTS: Of 1712 patients enrolled, 1173 underwent IFRT at 256 institutions in 7 countries. An interventional review was performed in 88% of patients and a final review in 98%. Overall, minor and major deviations were found in 12% and 6% of patients, respectively. Among the cases for which ≥1 pre-IFRT modification was requested by the Quality Assurance Review Center and subsequently made by the treating institution, 100% were made compliant on final review. By contrast, among the cases for which ≥1 modification was requested but not made by the treating institution, 10% were deemed compliant on final review. CONCLUSIONS: In a large trial with complex treatment pathways and heterogeneous radiation therapy fields, central review was performed in a large percentage of cases before IFRT and identified frequent potential deviations in a timely manner. When suggested modifications were performed by the institutions, deviations were almost eliminated.

Patterns of relapse from a phase 3 Study of response-based therapy for intermediate-risk Hodgkin lymphoma (AHOD0031): a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: The study was designed to determine whether response-based therapy improves outcomes in intermediate-risk Hodgkin lymphoma. We examined patterns of first relapse in the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2002 to July 2010, 1712 patients <22 years old with stage I-IIA with bulk, I-IIAE, I-IIB, and IIIA-IVA with or without doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide were enrolled. Patients were categorized as rapid (RER) or slow early responders (SER) after 2 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC). The SER patients were randomized to 2 additional ABVE-PC cycles or augmented chemotherapy with 21 Gy involved field radiation therapy (IFRT). RER patients were stipulated to undergo 2 additional ABVE-PC cycles and were then randomized to 21 Gy IFRT or no further treatment if complete response (CR) was achieved. RER without CR patients were non-randomly assigned to 21 Gy IFRT. Relapses were characterized without respect to site (initial, new, or both; and initial bulk or initial nonbulk), and involved field radiation therapy field (in-field, out-of-field, or both). Patients were grouped by treatment assignment (SER; RER/no CR; RER/CR/IFRT; and RER/CR/no IFRT). Summary statistics were reported. RESULTS: At 4-year median follow-up, 244 patients had experienced relapse, 198 of whom were fully evaluable for review. Those who progressed during treatment (n=30) or lacked relapse imaging (n=16) were excluded. The median time to relapse was 12.8 months. Of the 198 evaluable patients, 30% were RER/no CR, 26% were SER, 26% were RER/CR/no IFRT, 16% were RER/CR/IFRT, and 2% remained uncategorized. The 74% and 75% relapses involved initially bulky and nonbulky sites, respectively. First relapses rarely occurred at exclusively new or out-of-field sites. By contrast, relapses usually occurred at nodal sites of initial bulky and nonbulky disease. CONCLUSION: Although response-based therapy has helped define treatment for selected RER patients, it has not improved outcome for SER patients or facilitated refinement of IFRT volumes or doses.