Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun 7;13(1):108.
doi: 10.1186/s13014-018-1053-7.

Quality of radiotherapy reporting in randomized controlled trials of prostate cancer

Yu Yang Soon  1 , Desiree Chen  1 , Teng Hwee Tan  1 , Jeremy Tey  2
Affiliations

Quality of radiotherapy reporting in randomized controlled trials of prostate cancer

Yu Yang Soon et al. Radiat Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Good radiotherapy reporting in clinical trials of prostate radiotherapy is important because it will allow accurate reproducibility of radiotherapy treatment and minimize treatment variations that can affect patient outcomes. The aim of our study is to assess the quality of prostate radiotherapy (RT) treatment reporting in randomized controlled trials in prostate cancer.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE for randomized trials of prostate cancer, published from 1996 to 2016 and included prostate RT as one of the intervention arms. We assessed if the investigators reported the ten criteria adequately in the trial reports: RT dose prescription method; RT dose-planning procedures; organs at risk (OAR) dose constraints; target volume definition, simulation procedures; treatment verification procedures; total RT dose; fractionation schedule; conduct of quality assurance (QA) as well as presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery. We performed multivariate logistic regression to determine the factors that may influence the quality of reporting.

Results: We found 59 eligible trials. There was significant variability in the quality of reporting. Target volume definition, total RT dose and fractionation schedule were reported adequately in 97% of included trials. OAR constraints, simulation procedures and presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery were reported adequately in 30% of included trials. Twenty-four trials (40%) reported seven criteria or more adequately. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that trials that published their quality assurance results and cooperative group trials were more likely to have adequate quality in reporting in at least seven criteria.

Conclusion: There is significant variability in the quality of reporting on prostate radiotherapy treatment in randomized trials of prostate cancer. We need to have consensus guidelines to standardize the reporting of radiotherapy treatment in randomized trials.

Keywords: Prostate cancer; Quality of radiotherapy reporting; Randomized controlled trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Bias in reporting of toxicity endpoint assessment was explored using a hierarchy scale from 1 (excellent) to 7 (very poor) to indicate whether reporting of toxicities occurred in the abstract, discussion, concluding statement or results table (Fig. 1). Reports with scores 5 to 7 were judged as having bias in the reporting of toxicity endpoint
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Results of the search strategy. Four hundred thirty-six records were identified. One hundred one full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Fifty-nine studies were included in the analysis
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bar graph showing number of quality measures which were adequately reported in all trials. X-axis shows number of quality measures reported. Y-axis shows number of trials reporting the corresponding number of quality measures adequately
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidenced based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305–310. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Jr, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;2:31–49. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Albert JM, Das P. Quality indicators in radiation oncology. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(4):904e911. - PubMed
    1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–639. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030. - DOI - PubMed
    1. EQUATOR network. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort/. Accessed 20 Jul 2017.

MeSH terms