Trial reportThe British journal of radiology2018
Credentialing of radiotherapy centres in Australasia for TROG 09.02 (Chisel), a Phase III clinical trial on stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy of early stage lung cancer.
Trial report in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01014130 (A Randomised Phase III Trial of Highly Conformal Hypofractionated Image Guided), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Randomised Phase III Trial of Highly Conformal Hypofractionated Image Guided ("Stereotactic") Radiotherapy (HypoRT) Versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy (ConRT) for Inoperable Early Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (CHISEL)
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Italian radiotherapy research from 1985 to 2005: preliminary analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2019Pooled it
- Personalising treatment plan quality review with knowledge-based planning in the TROG 15.03 trial for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in primary kidney cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Trial
- A review of clinical trial radiotherapy quality assurance: value, evolution and lessons.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- A novel audit methodology to improve detection of planning and delivery errors in passive motion management.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Lung SBRT credentialing in the Canadian OCOG-LUSTRE randomized trial.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Outcomes in a Single Institution.Cureus · 2022Article
- Technological quality requirements for stereotactic radiotherapy : Expert review group consensus from the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020Review
- Independent review of 4DCT scans used for SABR treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Master Protocol Trial Design for Efficient and Rational Evaluation of Novel Therapeutic Oncology Devices.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA randomised clinical trial comparing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) with conventional radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer has been conducted in Australia and New Zealand under the auspices of the TransTasman Radiation Oncology Group (NCT01014130). We report on the technical credentialing program as prerequisite for centres joining the trial.
methodsParticipating centres were asked to develop treatment plans for two test cases to assess their ability to create plans according to protocol. Dose delivery in the presence of inhomogeneity and motion was assessed during a site visit using a phantom with moving inserts.
resultsSite visits for the trial were conducted in 16 Australian and 3 New Zealand radiotherapy facilities. The tests with low density inhomogeneities confirmed shortcomings of the AAA algorithm for dose calculation. Dose was assessed for a typical treatment delivery including at least one non-coplanar beam in a stationary and moving phantom. This end-to-end test confirmed that all participating centres were able to deliver stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy with the required accuracy while the planning study demonstrated that they were able to produce acceptable plans for both test cases.
conclusionThe credentialing process documented that participating centres were able to deliver dose as required in the trial protocol. It also gave an opportunity to provide education about the trial and discuss technical issues such as four-dimensional CT, small field dosimetry and patient immobilisation with staff in participating centres. Advances in knowledge: Credentialing is an important quality assurance tool for radiotherapy trials using advanced technology. In addition to confirming technical competence, it provides an opportunity for education and discussion about the trial.
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.