Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Stephen F Kry¹, Jessica Lye², Catharine H Clark³, Nicolaus Andratschke⁴, Alexis Dimitriadis⁵, David Followill⁶, Rebecca Howell⁷, Mohammad Hussein⁸, Masayori Ishikawa⁹, Satoshi Kito¹⁰, Tomas Kron¹¹, Jonny Lee¹², Jeff Michalski¹³, Angelo Filippo Monti¹⁴, Nick Reynaert¹⁵, Paige Taylor⁶, Karen Venables¹², Ying Xiao¹⁶, Joerg Lehmann¹⁷

Affiliations

¹ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. Electronic address: sfkry@mdanderson.org.
² Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, Australia; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research and Wellness Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
³ NIHR Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, University College London Hospital, University College London, National Physical Laboratory, UK.
⁴ European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiotherapy Quality Assurance Group, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
⁵ Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
⁶ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
⁷ Radiation Dosimetry Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
⁸ National Physical Laboratory, UK.
⁹ Japan Clinical Oncology Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Japan.
¹⁰ Japan Clinical Oncology Group, Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, Japan.
¹¹ Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG), Newcastle, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
¹² NIHR Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
¹³ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.
¹⁴ European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Department of Medical Physics, ASST GOM Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.
¹⁵ European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Medical Physics Department, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
¹⁶ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
¹⁷ Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG), Newcastle, Australia; Radiation Oncology Department, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Australia; School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Australia; Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Australia.

PMID: 33741471
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.03.006

Free article

Review

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Stephen F Kry et al. Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jun.

Free article

. 2021 Jun:159:106-111.

doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.03.006. Epub 2021 Mar 17.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. Electronic address: sfkry@mdanderson.org.
² Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, Australia; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research and Wellness Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
³ NIHR Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, University College London Hospital, University College London, National Physical Laboratory, UK.
⁴ European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiotherapy Quality Assurance Group, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
⁵ Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
⁶ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
⁷ Radiation Dosimetry Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
⁸ National Physical Laboratory, UK.
⁹ Japan Clinical Oncology Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Japan.
¹⁰ Japan Clinical Oncology Group, Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, Japan.
¹¹ Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG), Newcastle, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
¹² NIHR Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
¹³ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.
¹⁴ European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Department of Medical Physics, ASST GOM Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.
¹⁵ European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Medical Physics Department, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
¹⁶ Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
¹⁷ Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG), Newcastle, Australia; Radiation Oncology Department, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Australia; School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Australia; Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Australia.

PMID: 33741471
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.03.006

Abstract

Purpose: To promote consistency in clinical trials by recommending a uniform framework as it relates to radiation transport and dose calculation in water versus in medium.

Methods: The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonisation Group (GHG; www.rtqaharmonization.org) compared the differences between dose to water in water (D_w,w), dose to water in medium (D_w,m), and dose to medium in medium (D_m,m). This was done based on a review of historical frameworks, existing literature and standards, clinical issues in the context of clinical trials, and the trajectory of radiation dose calculations. Based on these factors, recommendations were developed.

Results: No framework was found to be ideal or perfect given the history, complexity, and current status of radiation therapy. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the GHG established a recommendation preferring dose to medium in medium (D_m,m).

Conclusions: Dose to medium in medium (D_m,m) is the preferred dose calculation and reporting framework. If an institution's planning system can only calculate dose to water in water (D_w,w), this is acceptable.

Keywords: Clinical trial; Dose calculation; Dose to medium, Dose to water; GHG; Radiation dosage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Substances

Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Affiliations

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources