TY - JOUR
T1 - Redesigning radiotherapy quality assurance
T2 - Opportunities to develop an efficient, evidence-based system to support clinical trials - Report of the National Cancer Institute work group on radiotherapy quality assurance
AU - Bekelman, Justin E.
AU - Deye, James A.
AU - Vikram, Bhadrasain
AU - Bentzen, Soren M.
AU - Bruner, Deborah
AU - Curran, Walter J.
AU - Dignam, James
AU - Efstathiou, Jason A.
AU - Fitzgerald, T. J.
AU - Hurkmans, Coen
AU - Ibbott, Geoffrey S.
AU - Lee, J. Jack
AU - Merchant, Thomas E.
AU - Michalski, Jeff
AU - Palta, Jatinder R.
AU - Simon, Richard
AU - Ten Haken, Randal K.
AU - Timmerman, Robert
AU - Tunis, Sean
AU - Coleman, C. Norman
AU - Purdy, James
N1 - Funding Information:
The conference was sponsored by the NCI Radiation Research Program. This NCI agency is responsible for evaluating RT technology and QA in cancer clinical trials. The conference goal was to identify opportunities for developing an efficient, evidence-based QA system to support RT in cancer clinical trials. The objective of the present report was to summarize the workshop’s findings and recommendations.
Funding Information:
We acknowledge the support of the National Cancer Institute Radiation Research Program in sponsoring the conference. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for constructive comments that improved the report.
PY - 2012/7/1
Y1 - 2012/7/1
N2 - Purpose: In the context of national calls for reorganizing cancer clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a 2-day workshop to examine challenges and opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) in clinical trial design. Methods and Materials: Participants reviewed the current processes of clinical trial QA and noted the QA challenges presented by advanced technologies. The lessons learned from the radiotherapy QA programs of recent trials were discussed in detail. Four potential opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy QA were explored, including the use of normal tissue toxicity and tumor control metrics, biomarkers of radiation toxicity, new radiotherapy modalities such as proton beam therapy, and the international harmonization of clinical trial QA. Results: Four recommendations were made: (1) to develop a tiered (and more efficient) system for radiotherapy QA and tailor the intensity of QA to the clinical trial objectives (tiers include general credentialing, trial-specific credentialing, and individual case review); (2) to establish a case QA repository; (3) to develop an evidence base for clinical trial QA and introduce innovative prospective trial designs to evaluate radiotherapy QA in clinical trials; and (4) to explore the feasibility of consolidating clinical trial QA in the United States. Conclusion: Radiotherapy QA can affect clinical trial accrual, cost, outcomes, and generalizability. To achieve maximum benefit, QA programs must become more efficient and evidence-based.
AB - Purpose: In the context of national calls for reorganizing cancer clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a 2-day workshop to examine challenges and opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) in clinical trial design. Methods and Materials: Participants reviewed the current processes of clinical trial QA and noted the QA challenges presented by advanced technologies. The lessons learned from the radiotherapy QA programs of recent trials were discussed in detail. Four potential opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy QA were explored, including the use of normal tissue toxicity and tumor control metrics, biomarkers of radiation toxicity, new radiotherapy modalities such as proton beam therapy, and the international harmonization of clinical trial QA. Results: Four recommendations were made: (1) to develop a tiered (and more efficient) system for radiotherapy QA and tailor the intensity of QA to the clinical trial objectives (tiers include general credentialing, trial-specific credentialing, and individual case review); (2) to establish a case QA repository; (3) to develop an evidence base for clinical trial QA and introduce innovative prospective trial designs to evaluate radiotherapy QA in clinical trials; and (4) to explore the feasibility of consolidating clinical trial QA in the United States. Conclusion: Radiotherapy QA can affect clinical trial accrual, cost, outcomes, and generalizability. To achieve maximum benefit, QA programs must become more efficient and evidence-based.
KW - Clinical trial design
KW - Credentialing
KW - Quality assurance
KW - Radiotherapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862777947&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.080
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.080
M3 - Review article
C2 - 22425219
AN - SCOPUS:84862777947
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 83
SP - 782
EP - 790
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 3
ER -