4.7 Review

Quality assurance for prospective EORTC radiation oncology trials: The challenges of advanced technology in a multicenter international setting

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 1, Pages 150-156

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.073

Keywords

Quality assurance; Radiotherapy; Clinical trial; EORTC; Radiation Oncology Group

Funding

  1. The Vlaamse Liga Tegen Kanker

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) is a pan-European structure charged with improving cancer treatment through the testing of new therapeutic strategies in phases I-III clinical studies. Properly conducted trials in radiation oncology are required to demonstrate superiority of a new treatment over the current standard. The Radiation Oncology Group (ROG) has initiated a complex quality assurance (QA) program to ensure safe and effective treatment delivery. Most modern trials are multicenter and multidisciplinary, further increasing the importance of early, strict and consistent QA in radiotherapy (RT). QART measures confirm whether a site possesses minimum staff and equipment for participation. Dummy runs, reviews of patient treatment plans and complex dosimetry checks verify the ability of an institution to comply with the protocol. Data required for evaluation are increasingly exchanged digitally, allowing detailed plan reconstruction, evaluation of target volume delineation and recalculation of dose-volume parameters for comparison against predefined standards. The five tiers of QA implemented in EORTC trials are reviewed, along with past, current and future QART initiatives. As substantial human and financial resources are increasingly invested in QART, the importance of cost-benefit analysis of QA and its impact on clinical outcome cannot be overstated. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 100 (2011) 150-156

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available