Redesigning radiotherapy quality assurance: opportunities to develop an efficient, evidence-based system to support clinical trials--report of the National Cancer Institute Work Group on Radiotherapy Quality Assurance
- PMID: 22425219
- PMCID: PMC3361528
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.080
Redesigning radiotherapy quality assurance: opportunities to develop an efficient, evidence-based system to support clinical trials--report of the National Cancer Institute Work Group on Radiotherapy Quality Assurance
Abstract
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.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Fitzgerald reports receiving NIH funding to his institution to support the Quality Assurance Review Center. Dr. Michalski reports receiving NIH funding to his institution to support the Advanced Technology Consortium.
Comment in
-
Independent Phantom Irradiation Is Both Necessary and Cost Effective for Clinical Trial Credentialing.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jul 1;92(3):501-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.01.021. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015. PMID: 26068481 No abstract available.
References
-
- Federal Coordinating Council. [Last accessed December 13, 2010];Report to the President and the Congress on Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2010 At http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/execsummary.html.
-
- Nass SJ, Moses HL, Mendelsohn J, editors. A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. Washington, D.C: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2010. - PubMed
-
- Purdy JA. Quality assurance issues in conducting multi-institutional advanced technology clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:S66–S70. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
