Imaging and Data Acquisition in Clinical Trials for Radiation Therapy.

Cancer treatment evolves through oncology clinical trials. Cancer trials are multimodal and complex. Assuring high-quality data are available to answer not only study objectives but also questions not anticipated at study initiation is the role of quality assurance. The National Cancer Institute reorganized its cancer clinical trials program in 2014. The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) was formed and within it was established a Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Organization. This organization is Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group, consisting of 6 quality assurance centers that provide imaging and radiation therapy quality assurance for the NCTN. Sophisticated imaging is used for cancer diagnosis, treatment, and management as well as for image-driven technologies to plan and execute radiation treatment. Integration of imaging and radiation oncology data acquisition, review, management, and archive strategies are essential for trial compliance and future research. Lessons learned from previous trials are and provide evidence to support diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy data acquisition in NCTN trials.

NCI support for particle therapy: past, present, future.

In light of the rising worldwide interest in particle therapy, and proton therapy specifically in the United States, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is being asked more often about funding for such research and facilities. Many of the questions imply that NCI is naive to the exciting possibilities inherent in particle therapies, and thus they wish to encourage NCI to initiate and underwrite such programs. In fact, NCI has a long track record of support for the translation of hadrons from the physics laboratory to the therapy clinic by way of technology development and scientific investigations of physical and biological processes as well as clinical outcomes. Early work has included continuous funding since 1961 of proton treatments for more than 15,000 patients and facility construction at the Harvard/Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) site; treatment of 227 patients with the pi-meson facility at Los Alamos between 1974 and 1981; funding of more than $69M for seven neutron therapy centers between 1971 and 1989; many funded projects in boron neutron capture radiation therapy through the present time; and numerous radiobiology projects over the past 50 y. NCI continues to play an active role in the incorporation of protons into randomized clinical trials through the Children's Oncology Group, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and the Program Project Grant (P01), which is co-directed by the MGH and MD Anderson Cancer Center. This has required funding development and implementation of guidelines that enable intercomparison of dosimetry and treatment between facilities. NCI has also funded recent efforts to develop new physical processes for the production of particles such as protons. With regard to the future, while it is true that there are no specific funding opportunity announcements directed to particle therapy research, it is also true that NCI remains open to reviewing any research that is compatible with an established mechanism. However, given the very substantial resources that these facilities currently require along with the highly competitive economic environment that now exists, it is clear that scientific review of such grant applications will look to leverage the scientific pursuits that are the NCI mandate with the reality of the clinical practices, just as is the case for photon radiation research. Such leveraging should be enhanced by the growing opportunities and need for international collaborations. On the other hand, these collaborations are complicated by the fact that these particle therapies are now fully reimbursable modalities, which makes it difficult to separate research (the NCI mission) from clinical practice development. This paper seeks to illuminate these new realities in order to encourage the pursuit and funding of the scientific underpinnings of physical methods, radiobiology, and clinical practice with particle therapy.

Redesigning radiotherapy quality assurance: opportunities to develop an efficient, evidence-based system to support clinical trials--report of the National Cancer Institute Work Group on Radiotherapy Quality Assurance.

PURPOSE: In the context of national calls for reorganizing cancer clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a 2-day workshop to examine challenges and opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) in clinical trial design. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants reviewed the current processes of clinical trial QA and noted the QA challenges presented by advanced technologies. The lessons learned from the radiotherapy QA programs of recent trials were discussed in detail. Four potential opportunities for optimizing radiotherapy QA were explored, including the use of normal tissue toxicity and tumor control metrics, biomarkers of radiation toxicity, new radiotherapy modalities such as proton beam therapy, and the international harmonization of clinical trial QA. RESULTS: Four recommendations were made: (1) to develop a tiered (and more efficient) system for radiotherapy QA and tailor the intensity of QA to the clinical trial objectives (tiers include general credentialing, trial-specific credentialing, and individual case review); (2) to establish a case QA repository; (3) to develop an evidence base for clinical trial QA and introduce innovative prospective trial designs to evaluate radiotherapy QA in clinical trials; and (4) to explore the feasibility of consolidating clinical trial QA in the United States. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy QA can affect clinical trial accrual, cost, outcomes, and generalizability. To achieve maximum benefit, QA programs must become more efficient and evidence-based.

Current status and future potential of advanced technologies in radiation oncology. Part 1. Challenges and resources.

In 2006, the Radiation Research Program of the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis of the National Cancer Institute hosted a workshop intended to address current issues related to advanced radiation therapy technologies, with an eye toward (1) defining the specific toxicities that have limited the success of "conventional" radiation therapy, (2) examining the evidence from phase III studies for the improvements attributed to the advanced technologies in the treatment of several cancers commonly treated with radiation therapy, and (3) determining the opportunities and priorities for further technologic development and clinical trials. The new technologies offer substantial theoretical advantage in radiation dose distributions that, if realized in clinical practice, may help many cancer patients live longer and/or better. The precision of the advanced technologies may allow us to reduce the volume of normal tissue irradiated in the vicinity of the clinical target volume. Part 1 of this two-part article will provide a general overview of the workshop discussion, focusing on the challenges posed by the new technologies and resources available or in development for meeting those challenges. Part 2, which will appear in next month's issue of ONCOLOGY, will address the state of the science for each disease site.

Current status and future potential of advanced technologies in radiation oncology. Part 2. State of the science by anatomic site.

In December 2006, the Radiation Research Program of the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis of the National Cancer Institute hosted a workshop intended to address current issues related to advanced radiation therapy technologies, with an eye toward (1) defining the specific toxicities that have limited the success of "conventional" radiation therapy, (2) examining the evidence from phase III studies for the improvements attributed to the advanced technologies in the treatment of several cancers commonly treated with radiation therapy, and (3) determining the opportunities and priorities for further technologic development and clinical trials. The new technologies offer substantial theoretical advantage in radiation dose distributions that, if realized in clinical practice, may help many cancer patients live longer and/or better. The precision of the advanced technologies may allow us to reduce the volume of normal tissue irradiated in the vicinity of the clinical target volume. Part 1 of this two-part article, which appeared in the March issue of ONCOLOGY, provided a general overview of the workshop discussion, focusing on the challenges posed by the new technologies and resources available or in development for meeting those challenges. This month, part 2 will outline the state of the science for each disease site.

Quality assurance needs for modern image-based radiotherapy: recommendations from 2007 interorganizational symposium on "quality assurance of radiation therapy: challenges of advanced technology".

This report summarizes the consensus findings and recommendations emerging from 2007 Symposium, "Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy: Challenges of Advanced Technology." The Symposium was held in Dallas February 20-22, 2007. The 3-day program, which was sponsored jointly by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), and National Cancer Institute (NCI), included >40 invited speakers from the radiation oncology and industrial engineering/human factor communities and attracted nearly 350 attendees, mostly medical physicists. A summary of the major findings follows. The current process of developing consensus recommendations for prescriptive quality assurance (QA) tests remains valid for many of the devices and software systems used in modern radiotherapy (RT), although for some technologies, QA guidance is incomplete or out of date. The current approach to QA does not seem feasible for image-based planning, image-guided therapies, or computer-controlled therapy. In these areas, additional scientific investigation and innovative approaches are needed to manage risk and mitigate errors, including a better balance between mitigating the risk of catastrophic error and maintaining treatment quality, complimenting the current device-centered QA perspective by a more process-centered approach, and broadening community participation in QA guidance formulation and implementation. Industrial engineers and human factor experts can make significant contributions toward advancing a broader, more process-oriented, risk-based formulation of RT QA. Healthcare administrators need to appropriately increase personnel and ancillary equipment resources, as well as capital resources, when new advanced technology RT modalities are implemented. The pace of formalizing clinical physics training must rapidly increase to provide an adequately trained physics workforce for advanced technology RT. The specific recommendations of the Symposium included the following. First, the AAPM, in cooperation with other advisory bodies, should undertake a systematic program to update conventional QA guidance using available risk-assessment methods. Second, the AAPM advanced technology RT Task Groups should better balance clinical process vs. device operation aspects--encouraging greater levels of multidisciplinary participation such as industrial engineering consultants and use-risk assessment and process-flow techniques. Third, ASTRO should form a multidisciplinary subcommittee, consisting of physician, physicist, vendor, and industrial engineering representatives, to better address modern RT quality management and QA needs. Finally, government and private entities committed to improved healthcare quality and safety should support research directed toward addressing QA problems in image-guided therapies.