ReviewFrontiers in oncology2013
Quality assurance for clinical trials.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiotherapy quality assurance in the PROTECT trial - a European randomised phase III-trial comparing proton and photon therapy in the treatment of patients with oesophageal cancer.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Trial
- Quality assurance of the SCOPE 1 trial in oesophageal radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Trial
- Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCOPE-1: a phase II/III randomised trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy +/- cetuximab in oesophageal cancer.British journal of cancer · 2017Trial
- Multicentre dosimetry audit in the European randomized phase III study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy using proton versus photon radiotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- A multi-institutional trial evaluating the use of an integrated quality assurance phantom for frameless single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Versus Definitive Chemoradiotherapy With Salvage Surgery as Needed: The Study Protocol for the Randomized Controlled NEEDS Trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Recommendations for Multicentre Clinical Trials Involving Dosimetry for Molecular Radiotherapy.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2021Article
- Practical implications to contemplate when considering radical therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.British journal of cancer · 2020Review
- Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2018Article
- Leveraging National Cancer Institute Programmatic Collaboration for Uterine Cervix Cancer Patient Accrual in Puerto Rico.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
- Patient-related quality assurance with different combinations of treatment planning systems, techniques, and machines : A multi-institutional survey.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2017Article
- Semiautomated segmentation of head and neck cancers in 18F-FDG PET scans: A just-enough-interaction approach.Medical physics · 2016Article
- The effect of slice thickness on target and organs at risk volumes, dosimetric coverage and radiobiological impact in IMRT planning.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2016Article
- Offline Quality Assurance for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans for NRG-HN001 Head and Neck Clinical Trial Using Knowledge-Based Planning.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Inter-departmental dosimetry audits - development of methods and lessons learned.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cooperative groups, of which the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group is one example, conduct national clinical trials that often involve the use of radiation therapy. In preparation for such a trial, the cooperative group prepares a protocol to define the goals of the trial, the rationale for its design, and the details of the treatment procedure to be followed. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is one of several quality assurance (QA) offices that is charged with assuring that participating institutions deliver doses that are clinically consistent and comparable. The RPC does this by conducting a variety of independent audits and credentialing processes. The RPC has compiled data showing that credentialing can help institutions comply with the requirements of a cooperative group clinical protocol. Phantom irradiations have been demonstrated to exercise an institution's procedures for planning and delivering advanced external beam techniques (1-3). Similarly, RPC data indicate that a rapid review of patient treatment records or planning procedures can improve compliance with clinical trials (4). The experiences of the RPC are presented as examples of the contributions that a national clinical trials QA center can make to cooperative group trials. These experiences illustrate the critical need for comprehensive QA to assure that clinical trials are successful and cost-effective. The RPC is supported by grants CA 10953 and CA 81647 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.