Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2015
Radiotherapy quality assurance report from children's oncology group AHOD0031.
Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A dedicated cloud system for real-time upfront quality assurance in pediatric radiation therapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019Trial
- A review of clinical trial radiotherapy quality assurance: value, evolution and lessons.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Whole Lung Irradiation in Rhabdomyosarcoma With Lung Metastases: A Report From the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- The Importance of Quality Assurance in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2023Review
- Quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Quality assurance in radiation oncology.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2021Review
- The Children's Oncology Group Radiation Oncology Discipline: 15 Years of Contributions to the Treatment of Childhood Cancer.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2018Review
- Patterns of Involved-Field Radiation Therapy Protocol Deviations in Pediatric Versus Adolescent and Young Adults With Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group AHOD0031.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2018Article
- Hodgkin Lymphoma: Differences in Treatment Between Europe and the United States/North America: Evolving Trends in Protocol Therapy.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2018Review
- Imaging and Data Acquisition in Clinical Trials for Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2016Review
- Automated Extraction of Dose/Volume Statistics for Radiotherapy-Treatment-Plan Evaluation in Clinical-Trial Quality Assurance.Frontiers in oncology · 2016Article
- Credentialing for participation in clinical trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA phase 3 trial assessing response-based therapy in intermediate-risk Hodgkin lymphoma mandated real-time central review of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT) and imaging records by a centralized review center to maximize protocol compliance. We report the impact of centralized radiation therapy review on protocol compliance. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Review of simulation films, port films, and dosimetry records was required before and after treatment. Records were reviewed by study-affiliated or review center-affiliated radiation oncologists. A deviation of 6% to 10% from protocol-specified dose was scored as "minor"; a deviation of >10% was "major." A volume deviation was scored as "minor" if margins were less than specified or "major" if fields transected disease-bearing areas. Interventional review and final compliance review scores were assigned to each radiation therapy case and compared.
resultsOf 1712 patients enrolled, 1173 underwent IFRT at 256 institutions in 7 countries. An interventional review was performed in 88% of patients and a final review in 98%. Overall, minor and major deviations were found in 12% and 6% of patients, respectively. Among the cases for which ≥1 pre-IFRT modification was requested by the Quality Assurance Review Center and subsequently made by the treating institution, 100% were made compliant on final review. By contrast, among the cases for which ≥1 modification was requested but not made by the treating institution, 10% were deemed compliant on final review.
conclusionsIn a large trial with complex treatment pathways and heterogeneous radiation therapy fields, central review was performed in a large percentage of cases before IFRT and identified frequent potential deviations in a timely manner. When suggested modifications were performed by the institutions, deviations were almost eliminated.
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.