Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27596217›Full record

Trial reportStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2017

Quality control of involved field radiotherapy in the HD 13 and HD 14 trials : Report of the radiotherapy panel of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG).

J Kriz, C Baues, R Engenhart-Cabillic, U Haverkamp, K Herfart, P Lukas, A Plütschow, H Schmidberger, S Staar, M Fuchs and 2 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Consolidative proton therapy after chemotherapy for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2017
    Article
  3. Checkpoint inhibitors and radiation treatment in Hodgkin's lymphoma : New study concepts of the German Hodgkin Study Group.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

J KrizDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, Gebäude 1 A, 48419, Muenster, Germany.
C BauesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
R Engenhart-CabillicDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
U HaverkampDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, Gebäude 1 A, 48419, Muenster, Germany.
K HerfartDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
P LukasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
A PlütschowDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
H SchmidbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
S StaarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Bremen Mitte, Bremen, Germany.
M FuchsDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
A EngertDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
H T EichDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, Gebäude 1 A, 48419, Muenster, Germany. hans.eich@ukmuenster.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs part of the foundation of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) in 1978, a central radiotherapy (RT) reference centre was established to evaluate and to improve the quality of treatment. During the study generations, the quality assurance programs (QAP) were continued and adapted to the demands of each study. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the results of the fifth study generation and to compare them to the previous findings.

methodsWith the start of the fourth GHSG study generation (HD10-12), a central prospective review of all diagnostic images was established to create an individual treatment plan for each early stage study patient. The quality of involved field RT was retrospectively evaluated by an expert panel of radiation oncologists. In the fifth study generation (HD13-15), the retrospective review of radiotherapy performed was refined and the results were compared with the findings of the fourth generation.

resultsThe expert panel analyzed the RT planning and application of 1037 (28 %) patients (HD13 n = 465, HD14 n = 572). Simulation films were available in 85 % of cases and verification films in 87 %. RT was assessed as major violation in 46 % (HD13 = 38 %, HD14 = 52 %), minor violation in 9 % (HD13 = 9 %, HD14 = 9 %) and according to the protocol in 45 % (HD13 = 52 %, HD14 = 38 %).

conclusionThe value for QAP of RT within the GHSG trials is well known. Still there were several protocol violations. In the future, the QAP program has to be adapted to the requirements of "modern RT" in malignant lymphoma.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicGermanyGuideline AdherenceHodgkin DiseaseHumansPrevalenceQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiation OncologyRadiotherapy, ConformalRisk FactorsSystems IntegrationTreatment OutcomeHodgkin lymphomaMalignancyQuality assurance programRadiation therapyTreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID27596217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.