Adherence to Contouring and Treatment Planning Requirements Within a Multicentric Trial: Results of the Quality Assurance of the SAKK 09/10 trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of the radiation therapy (RT) quality assurance (QA) program of the phase 3 randomized SAKK 09/10 trial in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Within the Schweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Klinische Krebsforschung (SAKK) 09/10 trial testing 64-Gy versus 70-Gy salvage RT, a central collection of treatment plans was performed and thoroughly reviewed by a dedicated medical physicist and radiation oncologist. Adherence to the treatment protocol and specifically to the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines for target volume definition (classified as deviation observed yes vs no) and its potential correlation with acute and late toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) and freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) were investigated. RESULTS: The treatment plans for 344 patients treated between February 2011 and April 2014 depicted important deviations from the EORTC guidelines and the recommendations per trial protocol. For example, in up to half of the cases, the delineated structures deviated from the protocol (eg, prostate bed in 48.8%, rectal wall [RW] in 41%). In addition, variations in clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) occurred frequently (eg, CTV and PTV deviations in up to 42.4% and 25.9%, respectively). The detected deviations showed a significant association with a lower risk of grade ≥2 gastrointestinal acute toxicity when the CTV did not overlap the RW versus when the CTV overlapped the RW (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.85; P = .014), and a higher rate of grade ≥2 late genitourinary (GU) toxicity when the CTV overlapped the RW (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.17-5.72; P = .019). A marginally significant lower risk of grade ≥2 late GU toxicity was observed when the prostate bed did not overlap versus did overlap the RW (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.25-1.03; P = .06). In addition, a marginally significant decrease in FFBP was observed in patients with PTV not including surgical clips as potential markers of the limits of the prostate bed (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.96-2.17; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a thorough QA program, the central review of a phase 3 trial showed limited adherence to treatment protocol recommendations, which was associated with a higher risk of toxicity by means of acute or late gastrointestinal or GU toxicity and showed a trend toward worse FFBP. Data from this QA review might help to refine future QA programs and prostate bed delineation guidelines.

External beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, an international multicenter phase I trial, SAKK 77/07 and SASL 26.

PURPOSE: To assess feasibility and safety of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (cfRT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed stage cT1-4, cN0-1 HCC and Child-Pugh Score (CPS) A or B disease were included in a phase I multicenter trial. Metastatic HCC were allowed if ≥90% of total tumor volume was located within the liver. Patients were enrolled onto five dose-escalation levels (54-70Gy in 2Gy fractions) based on a modified 3 + 3 design, with cohorts of five patients instead of three patients in dose levels 4 and 5. Primary trial endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), as specifically defined for 17 clinical and nine laboratory parameters as grade ≥3 or ≥4 toxicity (CTCAE vs. 3). The threshold to declare a dose level as maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as a DLT rate of ≤16.7% in dose levels 1-3, and ≤10% in dose levels 4-5. Best objective response of target liver lesions and adverse events (AE's) were assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early in DL 3 due to low accrual. Nineteen patients were recruited. Fifteen patients were evaluable for the primary and 18 for the secondary endpoints. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached. One patient in dose level 1, and one patient in dose level 2 experienced DLT (lipase > 5xULN, and neutrophils <500/µL respectively). However, dose level 3 (62Gy) was completed, with no DLTs in 3 patients. Overall, 56% of patients had a partial response and 28% showed stable disease according to RECIST. No signs of radiation induced liver disease (RILD). Two patients in dose level 3 experienced lymphocytopenia grade 4, with no clinical impact. CONCLUSION: Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 58Gy to even large HCC was safe for patients with CPS A and B. 62Gy was delivered to three patients without any sign of clinically relevant increased toxicity. The maximum tolerated dose could not be determined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00777894 , registered October 21st, 2008.

Intercomparison of activity measurements for beta-emitters in Swiss nuclear medicine laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: The activity of injected radiopharmaceuticals in nuclear medicine, including beta-emitters used for pain palliation, has to be monitored systematically. The objective of the present work was to evaluate the situation and precision of activity monitoring for beta-emitters in Swiss nuclear medicine laboratories. METHODS: A questionnaire about the monitoring methods used was sent to 50 centers. On the basis of the questionnaire results, an intercomparison of activity measurements with 90Y and 169Er sources was organized. RESULTS: This study showed that most laboratories check beta-emitter activity with a dose calibrator measurement in the original vial provided by the producer or in the injection syringe. They therefore need to have calibration factors for the corresponding measurement geometries. The results of the intercomparison were disappointing overall. Sixteen of 27 90Y measurements and 17 of 22 169Er measurements in the original vial deviated from the reference activity by more than 20%. The situation was similar for the syringe. These discrepancies did not stem from the intrinsic limitation of the measuring method but were mainly attributable to the poor quality of the calibration factors provided by the manufacturers, in addition to lack of follow-up and incorrect background subtraction, particularly for 169Er, by the nuclear medicine laboratories. Manufacturers are being contacted to discuss possible improvements for the situation. CONCLUSION: This study showed that commercial dose calibrators are generally adequate for measurement of the activities of beta-emitters. However, in some cases, the measurement of 90Y can lead to errors reaching +/-50%. For 169Er, with its much lower beta-energy, the situation is even worse; the observed differences can be higher than 1 order of magnitude.

Use of EORTC target definition guidelines for dose-intensified salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer: results of the quality assurance program of the randomized trial SAKK 09/10.

PURPOSE: Different international target volume delineation guidelines exist and different treatment techniques are available for salvage radiation therapy (RT) for recurrent prostate cancer, but less is known regarding their respective applicability in clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A randomized phase III trial testing 64 Gy vs 70 Gy salvage RT was accompanied by an intense quality assurance program including a site-specific and study-specific questionnaire and a dummy run (DR). Target volume delineation was performed according to the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines, and a DR-based treatment plan was established for 70 Gy. Major and minor protocol deviations were noted, interobserver agreement of delineated target contours was assessed, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of different treatment techniques were compared. RESULTS: Thirty European centers participated, 43% of which were using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), with the remaining centers using intensity modulated RT (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc technique (VMAT). The first submitted version of the DR contained major deviations in 21 of 30 (70%) centers, mostly caused by inappropriately defined or lack of prostate bed (PB). All but 5 centers completed the DR successfully with their second submitted version. The interobserver agreement of the PB was moderate and was improved by the DR review, as indicated by an increased κ value (0.59 vs 0.55), mean sensitivity (0.64 vs 0.58), volume of total agreement (3.9 vs 3.3 cm(3)), and decrease in the union volume (79.3 vs 84.2 cm(3)). Rectal and bladder wall DVH parameters of IMRT and VMAT vs 3D-CRT plans were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver agreement of PB delineation was moderate but was improved by the DR. Major deviations could be identified for the majority of centers. The DR has improved the acquaintance of the participating centers with the trial protocol.