4.7 Article

Quality assurance of the EORTC 22043-30041 trial in post-operative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: Results of the Dummy Run procedure

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 346-351

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.04.020

关键词

Radiotherapy; Quality assurance; Prostate; Dummy Run; Delineation

资金

  1. Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd
  2. Vlaamse Liga Tegen Kanker from Belgium through the EORTC Charitable Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: The EORTC 22043-30041 trial investigates the role of the addition of androgen suppression to post-operative radiotherapy in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. As part of the quality assurance of radiotherapy (QART) a Dummy Run (DR) procedure was performed. Materials and method: The protocol included detailed and published delineation guidelines. Participating institutions digitally submitted radiotherapy treatment volumes and a treatment plan for a standard clinical case. Submissions were centrally reviewed using the VODCA software platform. Results: Thirty-eight submissions from thirty-one institutions were reviewed. Six were accepted without comments. Twenty-three were accepted with comments on one or more items: target volume delineation (22), OAR delineation (23), planning and dosimetry (3) or treatment verification (1). Nine submissions were rejected requiring resubmission, seven for target volume delineation reasons alone. Intervention to highlight the importance of delineation guidelines was made prior to the entry of the first patient in the trial. After this, a lower percentage of resubmissions was required. Conclusions: The EORTC 22043-30041 Dummy Run highlights the need for timely and effective QART in clinical trials. The variation in target volume and OAR definition demonstrates that clinical guidelines and radiotherapy protocols are not a substitute for QART procedures. Early intervention in response to the Dummy Run improved protocol understanding. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据