4.3 Article

Quality assuring Plan of the day selection in a multicentre adaptive bladder trial: Implementation of a pre-accrual IGRT guidance and assessment module

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.07.006

关键词

IGRT; Adaptive; Bladder; Radiotherapy; Trial QA

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [CRUK/12/055]
  2. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) core grant [C1491/A15955]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Hypofractionated bladder RT with or without image guided adaptive planning (HYBRID) is a multicentre clinical trial investigating Plan of the Day (PoD) adaptive radiotherapy for bladder cancer. To ensure correct PoD selection a pre-accrual guidance and assessment module was developed as part of an image guided radiotherapy quality assurance (IGRT QA) credentialing programme. This study aimed to evaluate its feasibility and effectiveness across multiple recruiting centres. Materials and methods: Individuals from participating centres remotely accessed an image database in order to complete the PoD module. An assessment score of >= 83% was required in order to receive QA approval. A questionnaire was used to gather user feedback on the module. PoD decisions for the first patient at each recruiting centre were retrospectively reviewed for protocol adherence. Results: 71 radiation therapists (RTTs) from 10 centres completed the PoD module. The median assessment score was 92% (Range: 58-100%) with 79% of RTTs passing the assessment on first attempt. All questionnaire respondents reported that the PoD module prepared them for plan selection. In 51/60 of on-trial treatments reviewed, the PoD selected by the centre agreed with QA reviewers. Conclusions: The PoD QA module was successfully implemented in a multicentre trial and enabled pre-accrual assessment of protocol understanding. This increased operator confidence and resulted in appropriate PoD selection on-trial. Crown Copyright (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.

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

4.3
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