ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2022
Lung SBRT credentialing in the Canadian OCOG-LUSTRE randomized trial.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A review of clinical trial radiotherapy quality assurance: value, evolution and lessons.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To report on the Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) credentialing experience during the Phase III Ontario Clinical Oncology Group (OCOG) LUSTRE trial for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Three credentialing requirements were required in this process: (a) An institutional technical survey; (b) IROC (Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core) thoracic phantom end-to-end test; and (c) Contouring and completion of standardized test cases using SBRT for one central and one peripheral lung cancer, compared against the host institution as the standard. The main hypotheses were that unacceptable variation would exist particularly in OAR definition across all centres, and that institutions with limited experience in SBRT would be more likely to violate per-protocol guidelines. Results: Fifteen Canadian centres participated of which 8 were new, and 7 were previously established (≥2 years SBRT experience), and all successfully completed surveys and IROC phantom testing. Of 30 SBRT test plans, 10 required replanning due to major deviations, with no differences in violations between new and established centres (p = 0.61). Mean contouring errors were highest for brachial plexus in the central (C) case (12.55 ± 6.62 mm), and vessels in the peripheral (P) case (13.01 ± 12.55 mm), with the proximal bronchial tree (PBT) (2.82 ± 0.78 C, 3.27 ± 1.06 P) as another variable structure. Mean dice coefficients were lowest for plexus (0.37 ± 0.2 C, 0.37 ± 0.14 P), PBT (0.77 ± 0.06 C, 0.75 ± 0.09 P), vessels (0.69 ± 0.29 C, 0.64 ± 0.31 P), and esophagus (0.74 ± 0.04 C, 0.76 ± 0.04 P). All plans passed per-protocol planning target volume (PTV) coverage and maximum/volumetric organs-at-risk constraints, although variations existed in dose gradients within and outside the target. Conclusions: Clear differences exist in both contouring and planning with lung SBRT, regardless of centre experience. Such an exercise is important for studies that rely on high precision radiotherapy, and to ensure that implications on trial quality and outcomes are as optimal as possible.
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.