SCOPE2试验中的放疗质量保证:下一个英国食管癌试验可以吸取什么教训?

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Clinical oncology Pub Date : 2024-12-17 DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2024.103735
J Helbrow, G Lewis, C Hurt, G Radhakrishna, O Nicholas, M A Hawkins, S Mukherjee, J Graby, T Crosby, S Gwynne
{"title":"SCOPE2试验中的放疗质量保证:下一个英国食管癌试验可以吸取什么教训?","authors":"J Helbrow, G Lewis, C Hurt, G Radhakrishna, O Nicholas, M A Hawkins, S Mukherjee, J Graby, T Crosby, S Gwynne","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2024.103735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The SCOPE2 trial evaluates radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation for oesophageal cancer. We report findings from the accompanying RT quality assurance (RTQA) programme and identify recommendations for PROTIEUS, the next UK trial in oesophageal RT.</p><p><strong>Maetrials and methods: </strong>SCOPE2's RTQA programme consisted of a pre-accrual and on-trial component. RTQA pre-accrual requirements included acceptable submission of 3D ± 4D benchmark contouring exercise(s) and a high-dose planning case. On-trial requirements for contouring and planning included prospective reviews (PRs) of each centre's first 3D ± 4D patient and all high-dose cases prior to formal safety review. Further PRs were at the RTQA team's discretion. Timely retrospective reviews (TRRs) were also undertaken for a random 10%. Submissions were assessed against pre-defined criteria and RT planning guidance document (RPGD). This study includes initial submissions only; subsequent resubmissions are not included in this analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For contouring, 30/64 (47%) pre-accrual submissions were approved. 38/64 (59%) contained ≥1 target volume (TV) unacceptable variation from protocol (UV), most commonly in CTVB and ITV. Organ-at-risk (OAR) contour review was undertaken in 28/64 (44%); 6/28 (21%) contained ≥1 UV, most commonly in heart and spinal cord. 82/126 (65%) on-trial submissions were approved. 47/126 (37%) contained ≥1 TV UV, most commonly in CTVB, GTV and ITV. For OARs, 30/126 (24%) contained ≥1 UV, most commonly in heart and lungs. On-trial contour submissions were significantly more likely to be approved than pre-accrual (p = 0.016). For planning, 32/43 (79%) pre-accrual plans were approved, those unacceptable were due to PTV coverage/conformity. 118/120 (98%) on-trial plans were approved, the remaining unacceptable were due to PTV coverage/conformity. No UVs in OAR dose constraints were observed. All on-trial submissions were approved following resubmission where necessary.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite an RPGD, contouring atlas, and similar contouring protocols from preceding trials, the SCOPE2 RTQA programme demonstrates a high frequency of UVs. Our findings inform recommendations for future oesophageal RT trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":"38 ","pages":"103735"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radiotherapy Quality Assurance in the SCOPE2 Trial: What Lessons can be Learned for the Next UK Trial in Oesophageal Cancer?\",\"authors\":\"J Helbrow, G Lewis, C Hurt, G Radhakrishna, O Nicholas, M A Hawkins, S Mukherjee, J Graby, T Crosby, S Gwynne\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clon.2024.103735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The SCOPE2 trial evaluates radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation for oesophageal cancer. We report findings from the accompanying RT quality assurance (RTQA) programme and identify recommendations for PROTIEUS, the next UK trial in oesophageal RT.</p><p><strong>Maetrials and methods: </strong>SCOPE2's RTQA programme consisted of a pre-accrual and on-trial component. RTQA pre-accrual requirements included acceptable submission of 3D ± 4D benchmark contouring exercise(s) and a high-dose planning case. On-trial requirements for contouring and planning included prospective reviews (PRs) of each centre's first 3D ± 4D patient and all high-dose cases prior to formal safety review. Further PRs were at the RTQA team's discretion. Timely retrospective reviews (TRRs) were also undertaken for a random 10%. Submissions were assessed against pre-defined criteria and RT planning guidance document (RPGD). This study includes initial submissions only; subsequent resubmissions are not included in this analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For contouring, 30/64 (47%) pre-accrual submissions were approved. 38/64 (59%) contained ≥1 target volume (TV) unacceptable variation from protocol (UV), most commonly in CTVB and ITV. Organ-at-risk (OAR) contour review was undertaken in 28/64 (44%); 6/28 (21%) contained ≥1 UV, most commonly in heart and spinal cord. 82/126 (65%) on-trial submissions were approved. 47/126 (37%) contained ≥1 TV UV, most commonly in CTVB, GTV and ITV. For OARs, 30/126 (24%) contained ≥1 UV, most commonly in heart and lungs. On-trial contour submissions were significantly more likely to be approved than pre-accrual (p = 0.016). For planning, 32/43 (79%) pre-accrual plans were approved, those unacceptable were due to PTV coverage/conformity. 118/120 (98%) on-trial plans were approved, the remaining unacceptable were due to PTV coverage/conformity. No UVs in OAR dose constraints were observed. All on-trial submissions were approved following resubmission where necessary.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite an RPGD, contouring atlas, and similar contouring protocols from preceding trials, the SCOPE2 RTQA programme demonstrates a high frequency of UVs. Our findings inform recommendations for future oesophageal RT trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\"38 \",\"pages\":\"103735\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2024.103735\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2024.103735","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:SCOPE2 试验对食道癌放射治疗(RT)剂量升级进行了评估。我们报告了配套的 RT 质量保证(RTQA)计划的结果,并为 PROTIEUS(英国下一项食道癌 RT 试验)提出了建议:SCOPE2的RT质量保证计划包括预执行和试验中两个部分。RTQA 预认证要求包括提交可接受的 3D ± 4D 基准轮廓练习和高剂量规划案例。对轮廓和规划的试验要求包括对每个中心的首例 3D ± 4D 患者和所有大剂量病例进行前瞻性审查 (PR),然后再进行正式的安全性审查。进一步的前瞻性审查由 RTQA 团队决定。此外,还对随机 10% 的患者进行了及时回顾性审查 (TRR)。根据预定义标准和 RT 计划指导文件 (RPGD) 对提交的材料进行评估。本研究仅包括首次提交的材料,随后再次提交的材料不在分析之列:就轮廓整形而言,30/64(47%)份应计前申请获得批准。38/64例(59%)中有≥1例目标容积(TV)与方案有不可接受的差异(UV),最常见的是CTVB和ITV。28/64(44%)例进行了风险器官(OAR)轮廓审查;6/28(21%)例包含≥1个UV,最常见于心脏和脊髓。82/126(65%)份试验申请获得批准。47/126(37%)包含≥1个电视紫外线,最常见于CTVB、GTV和ITV。对于 OAR,30/126(24%)包含≥1 个 UV,最常见的是心脏和肺部。试验中提交的轮廓图获得批准的几率明显高于申请前(p = 0.016)。在规划方面,32/43(79%)的预应变计划获得批准,不能接受的原因是 PTV 覆盖范围/符合性。118/120(98%)个试验中计划获得批准,其余不可接受的计划是由于 PTV 覆盖范围/符合性。在 OAR 剂量限制中未发现紫外线。所有提交的试验计划在必要时重新提交后都获得了批准:结论:尽管采用了 RPGD、轮廓图谱以及与之前试验类似的轮廓设计方案,但 SCOPE2 RTQA 计划仍显示出高频率的 UV。我们的研究结果为未来的食道 RT 试验提供了参考建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Radiotherapy Quality Assurance in the SCOPE2 Trial: What Lessons can be Learned for the Next UK Trial in Oesophageal Cancer?

Aims: The SCOPE2 trial evaluates radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation for oesophageal cancer. We report findings from the accompanying RT quality assurance (RTQA) programme and identify recommendations for PROTIEUS, the next UK trial in oesophageal RT.

Maetrials and methods: SCOPE2's RTQA programme consisted of a pre-accrual and on-trial component. RTQA pre-accrual requirements included acceptable submission of 3D ± 4D benchmark contouring exercise(s) and a high-dose planning case. On-trial requirements for contouring and planning included prospective reviews (PRs) of each centre's first 3D ± 4D patient and all high-dose cases prior to formal safety review. Further PRs were at the RTQA team's discretion. Timely retrospective reviews (TRRs) were also undertaken for a random 10%. Submissions were assessed against pre-defined criteria and RT planning guidance document (RPGD). This study includes initial submissions only; subsequent resubmissions are not included in this analysis.

Results: For contouring, 30/64 (47%) pre-accrual submissions were approved. 38/64 (59%) contained ≥1 target volume (TV) unacceptable variation from protocol (UV), most commonly in CTVB and ITV. Organ-at-risk (OAR) contour review was undertaken in 28/64 (44%); 6/28 (21%) contained ≥1 UV, most commonly in heart and spinal cord. 82/126 (65%) on-trial submissions were approved. 47/126 (37%) contained ≥1 TV UV, most commonly in CTVB, GTV and ITV. For OARs, 30/126 (24%) contained ≥1 UV, most commonly in heart and lungs. On-trial contour submissions were significantly more likely to be approved than pre-accrual (p = 0.016). For planning, 32/43 (79%) pre-accrual plans were approved, those unacceptable were due to PTV coverage/conformity. 118/120 (98%) on-trial plans were approved, the remaining unacceptable were due to PTV coverage/conformity. No UVs in OAR dose constraints were observed. All on-trial submissions were approved following resubmission where necessary.

Conclusion: Despite an RPGD, contouring atlas, and similar contouring protocols from preceding trials, the SCOPE2 RTQA programme demonstrates a high frequency of UVs. Our findings inform recommendations for future oesophageal RT trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical oncology
Clinical oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
332
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Under-representation for Female Pelvis Cancers in Commercial Auto-segmentation Solutions and Open-source Imaging Datasets. Sex-Based Bias in Artificial Intelligence-Based Segmentation Models in Clinical Oncology. Correspondence to the Editor: Reirradiation in Paediatric Tumors of the Central Nervous System: Outcome and Side Effects After Implementing National Guidelines. Comparing the Robustness of Intensity-modulated Proton Therapy and Proton-arc Therapy Against Interplay Effects of 4D Robust-optimised Plans for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy. Survival and Prognostic Factors in Nonmetastatic Chemorefractory Inflammatory Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Population-based Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1