ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Radiotherapy quality assurance in the TROG 12.01 randomised trial and its impact on loco-regional failure.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is no consensus as to what specifically constitutes head and neck cancer radiotherapy quality assurance (HNC RT QA). The aims of this study are to (1) describe the RT QA processes used in the TROG 12.01 study, (2) review the RT QA processes undertaken for all patients with loco-regional failure (LRF), and (3) provide prospective data to propose a consensus statement regarding the minimal components and optimal timing of HNC RT QA. Materials and methods: All patients undergoing RT QA in the original TROG 12.01 study were included in this substudy. All participating sites completed IMRT credentialling and a clinical benchmark case. Real-time (pre-treatment) RT QA was performed for the first patient of each treating radiation oncologist, and for one in five of subsequent patients. Protocol violations were deemed major if they related to contour and/or dose of gross tumour volume (GTV), high dose planning target volume (PTVhd), or critical organs of risk (spinal cord, mandible, and brachial plexus). Results: Thirty HNROs from 15 institutions accrued 182 patients. There were 28 clinical benchmark cases, 27 pre-treatment RT QA cases, and 38 post-treatment cases. Comprehensive RT QA was performed in 65/182 (36%) treated patients. Major protocol violations were found in 5/28 benchmark cases, 5/27 pre-treatment cases, and 6/38 post-treatment cases. An independent review of all nine LRF cases showed major protocol violations in four of nine cases. Conclusion: Only pre-treatment RT QA can improve patient outcomes. The minimal components of RT QA in HNC are GTVs, PTVhd, and critical organs at risk. What constitutes major dosimetric violations needs to be harmonised.
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.