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.

OBJECTIVE: A 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. METHODS: Participating 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. RESULTS: Site 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

TOPGEAR: A Randomized, Phase III Trial of Perioperative ECF Chemotherapy with or Without Preoperative Chemoradiation for Resectable Gastric Cancer: Interim Results from an International, Intergroup Trial of the AGITG, TROG, EORTC and CCTG.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative chemoradiation and perioperative chemotherapy using epirubicin/cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (ECF) represent two standards of care for resectable gastric cancer. In the TOPGEAR (Trial Of Preoperative therapy for Gastric and Esophagogastric junction AdenocaRcinoma) trial, we hypothesized that adding preoperative chemoradiation to perioperative ECF will improve survival; however, the safety and feasibility of preoperative chemoradiation have yet to be determined. METHODS: TOPGEAR is an international phase III trial in which patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach were randomized to perioperative ECF alone or with preoperative chemoradiation. The ECF-alone group received three preoperative cycles of ECF, while the chemoradiation group received two cycles of preoperative ECF followed by chemoradiation. Both groups received three postoperative cycles of ECF. A planned interim analysis of the first 120 patients was conducted, and was reviewed by the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee to assess treatment compliance, toxicity/safety, and response rates. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who received all cycles of preoperative chemotherapy was 93% (ECF group) and 98% (chemoradiation group), while 65 and 53%, respectively, received all cycles of postoperative chemotherapy. Overall, 92% of patients allocated to preoperative chemoradiation received this treatment. The proportion of patients proceeding to surgery was 90% (ECF group) and 85% (chemoradiation group). Grade 3 or higher surgical complications occurred in 22% of patients in both groups. Furthermore, grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 32% (ECF group) and 30% (chemoradiation group) of patients, while hematologic toxicity occurred in 50 and 52% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that preoperative chemoradiation can be safely delivered to the vast majority of patients without a significant increase in treatment toxicity or surgical morbidity.

Prostate radiotherapy clinical trial quality assurance: how real should real time review be? (A TROG-OCOG Intergroup Project).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Review of plans early in treatment offers the potential to reduce the chance of sub-optimal treatment delivery. We compare the use of real time reviews (RTR) either before randomization (pre-rand 3D RTR) or following randomization (post-rand 2D RTR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROFIT is an international randomised trial for men with prostate cancer which had credentialing via multiple dummy runs. In Australia, but not Canada, all plans were submitted for pre-rand 3D RTR using 3D software, and resubmission was requested if significant protocol deviations (PD) were seen. All plans from Canada and Australia then underwent post-rand 2D RTR using a 2D assessment. RESULTS: For 147 Australian patients, pre-rand 3D RTR was fast (median 1 day, 95% range 0-4 days). 51 minor and 5 major PD were observed and 15 of the 147 cases (10%) required resubmission. Of the 5 major PD, 4 were remedied on resubmission and 1 was withdrawn from study. For the post-rand 2D RTR, reports from 147 Australian cases and 193 Canadian cases were reviewed. No major PD were reported from Australian cases, but 3 were seen in Canadian cases (0% versus 1.5%; p=0.26). There was also no difference in the rate of minor PD (14.3% versus 15.3%; p=NS). CONCLUSIONS: In a study using relatively simple treatment volumes after comprehensive credentialing, pre-rand 3D RTR offers only modest benefits compared with post-rand 2D RTR. In the future the intensity of RTR may need to vary according to protocol and site specific factors.