Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jean Minjoz, Besançon, France; Department of Radiation Oncology, Unicancer-Georges François Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tenon Hospital, Hôpitaux Universitaires Est Parisien, Sorbonne University Medical Faculty, Paris, France.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Oct 1;105(2):329-337. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2542. Epub 2019 Jul 9.
The ongoing phase 2/3 PRODIGE 26/CONCORDE trial compares chemoradiation therapy with and without dose escalation in patients with locally advanced or unresectable esophageal cancer. The results of a benchmark case procedure are reported here to evaluate the protocol compliance of participating centers as part of quality assurance for radiation therapy.
Volume delineation, target coverage, and dose constraints to the organs at risk (OARs) were assessed on treatment plans of a common benchmark case performed by each participating center. The centers were classified in 3 categories: per protocol, minor acceptable deviation (MiD), or major unacceptable deviation (MaD). A plan was rejected if ≥4 MiDs or 1 MaD were found.
Thirty-5 centers submitted 43 plans. Among them, 14 (32.6%) were per protocol, 19 (44.2%) presented at least 1 MiD, 2 (4.6%) presented at least 1 MaD, and 8 (18.6%) presented both MiD and MaD. Overall, 11 (25.6%) plans were rejected. Only 1 plan was rejected because gross tumor volume was not correctly delineated. The OAR delineation was respected in all cases. Dose constraints to the OARs were respected in the majority of cases except for the heart, where one-third of the plans presented a deviation. As for the target volume, 3 plans (5.8%) had a major underdosage and 1 plan (1.9%) had a major overdosage. Overall, 58% of all treatments were planned with intensity modulated radiation therapy, whereas 42% were planned with 3-dimensional chemoradiation therapy. Significantly more plans in the intensity modulated radiation therapy group were accepted compared with the 3-dimensional chemoradiation therapy group (P = .03).
The high frequency of protocol deviations underlines the importance of a quality assurance program in clinical trials. Further work should assess the impact of quality assurance for radiation therapy on patient outcomes.
正在进行的 PRODIGE 26/CONCORDE 2 期/3 期试验比较了局部晚期或不可切除的食管癌患者接受放化疗与放疗加量的效果。本研究报告了基准病例处理的结果,以评估参与中心的方案依从性,作为放疗质量保证的一部分。
对每个参与中心进行的共同基准病例的治疗计划进行了容积勾画、靶区覆盖和危及器官(OAR)剂量限制的评估。将中心分为 3 类:符合方案(per protocol,PP)、轻度可接受偏差(minor acceptable deviation,MiD)和重度不可接受偏差(major unacceptable deviation,MaD)。如果发现≥4 个 MiD 或 1 个 MaD,则拒绝该方案。
35 个中心提交了 43 个计划。其中,14 个(32.6%)符合方案,19 个(44.2%)至少存在 1 个 MiD,2 个(4.6%)至少存在 1 个 MaD,8 个(18.6%)同时存在 MiD 和 MaD。总体而言,有 11 个(25.6%)计划被拒绝。只有 1 个计划因未正确勾画大体肿瘤体积而被拒绝。所有病例均符合 OAR 勾画要求。除心脏外,大多数病例的 OAR 剂量限制均符合要求,其中 1/3 的计划存在偏差。对于靶区体积,有 3 个(5.8%)计划存在主要欠量,1 个(1.9%)计划存在主要超量。总体而言,58%的治疗计划采用调强放疗,42%的治疗计划采用三维适形放疗。与三维适形放疗组相比,调强放疗组的计划接受率显著更高(P =.03)。
方案偏差的高频率强调了临床试验中质量保证计划的重要性。进一步的工作应评估放疗质量保证对患者结局的影响。