The Importance of Imaging in Radiation Oncology for National Clinical Trials Network Protocols.

Imaging is essential in successfully executing radiation therapy (RT) in oncology clinical trials. As technically sophisticated diagnostic imaging and RT were incorporated into trials, quality assurance in the National Clinical Trials Network groups entered a new era promoting image acquisition and review. Most trials involving RT require pre- and post-therapy imaging for target validation and outcome assessment. The increasing real-time (before and during therapy) imaging and RT object reviews are to ensure compliance with trial objectives. Objects easily transmit digitally for review from anywhere in the world. Physician interpretation of imaging and image application to RT treatment plans is essential for optimal trial execution. Imaging and RT data sets are used to credential RT sites to confirm investigator and institutional ability to meet trial target volume delineation and delivery requirements. Real-time imaging and RT object reviews can be performed multiple times during a trial to assess response to therapy and application of RT objects. This process has matured into an effective data management mechanism. When necessary, site and study investigators review objects together through web media technologies to ensure the patient is enrolled on the appropriate trial and the intended RT is planned and executed in a trial-compliant manner. Real-time imaging review makes sure: (1) the patient is entered and eligible for the trial, (2) the patient meets trial-specific adaptive therapy requirements, if applicable, and (3) the intended RT is according to trial guidelines. This review ensures the study population is uniform and the results are believable and can be applied to clinical practice.

Establishing the feasibility of the dosimetric compliance criteria of RTOG 1308: phase III randomized trial comparing overall survival after photon versus proton radiochemotherapy for inoperable stage II-IIIB NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: To establish the feasibility of the dosimetric compliance criteria of the RTOG 1308 trial through testing against Intensity Modulation Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Passive Scattering Proton Therapy (PSPT) plans. METHODS: Twenty-six lung IMRT and 26 proton PSPT plans were included in the study. Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) for targets and normal structures were analyzed. The quality of IMRT plans was assessed using a knowledge-based engineering tool. RESULTS: Most of the RTOG 1308 dosimetric criteria were achieved. The deviation unacceptable rates were less than 10 % for most criteria; however, a deviation unacceptable rate of more than 20 % was computed for the planning target volume minimum dose compliance criterion. Dose parameters for the target volume were very close for the IMRT and PSPT plans. However, the PSPT plans led to lower dose values for normal structures. The dose parameters in which PSPT plans resulted in lower values than IMRT plans were: lung V5Gy (%) (34.4 in PSPT and 47.2 in IMRT); maximum spinal cord dose (31.7 Gy in PSPT and 43.5 Gy in IMRT); heart V5Gy (%) (19 in PSPT and 47 in IMRT); heart V30Gy (%) (11 in PSPT and 19 in IMRT); heart V45Gy (%) (7.8 in PSPT and 12.1 in IMRT); heart V50% (Gy) (7.1 in PSPT and 9.8 in IMRT) and mean heart dose (7.7 Gy in PSPT and 14.9 Gy in IMRT). CONCLUSIONS: The revised RTOG 1308 dosimetric compliance criteria are feasible and achievable.

Structures' validation profiles in Transmission of Imaging and Data (TRIAD) for automated National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) clinical trial digital data quality assurance.

Transmission of Imaging and Data (TRIAD) is a standard-based system built by the American College of Radiology to provide the seamless exchange of images and data for accreditation of clinical trials and registries. Scripts of structures' names validation profiles created in TRIAD are used in the automated submission process. It is essential for users to understand the logistics of these scripts for successful submission of radiation therapy cases with less iteration.

Future vision for the quality assurance of oncology clinical trials.

The National Cancer Institute clinical cooperative groups have been instrumental over the past 50 years in developing clinical trials and evidence-based process improvements for clinical oncology patient care. The cooperative groups are undergoing a transformation process as we further integrate molecular biology into personalized patient care and move to incorporate international partners in clinical trials. To support this vision, data acquisition and data management informatics tools must become both nimble and robust to support transformational research at an enterprise level. Information, including imaging, pathology, molecular biology, radiation oncology, surgery, systemic therapy, and patient outcome data needs to be integrated into the clinical trial charter using adaptive clinical trial mechanisms for design of the trial. This information needs to be made available to investigators using digital processes for real-time data analysis. Future clinical trials will need to be designed and completed in a timely manner facilitated by nimble informatics processes for data management. This paper discusses both past experience and future vision for clinical trials as we move to develop data management and quality assurance processes to meet the needs of the modern trial.

Hypopharyngeal dose is associated with severe late toxicity in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer: an RTOG analysis.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) increases local tumor control but at the expense of increased toxicity. We recently showed that several clinical/pretreatment factors were associated with the occurrence of severe late toxicity. This study evaluated the potential relationship between radiation dose delivered to the pharyngeal wall and toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was an analysis of long-term survivors from 3 previously reported Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials of CCRT for locally advanced SCCHN (RTOG trials 91-11, 97-03, and 99-14). Severe late toxicity was defined in this secondary analysis as chronic grade 3-4 pharyngeal/laryngeal toxicity and/or requirement for a feeding tube≥2 years after registration and/or potential treatment-related death (eg, pneumonia) within 3 years. Radiation dosimetry (2-dimensional) analysis was performed centrally at RTOG headquarters to estimate doses to 4 regions of interest along the pharyngeal wall (superior oropharynx, inferior oropharynx, superior hypopharynx, and inferior hypopharynx). Case-control analysis was performed with a multivariate logistic regression model that included pretreatment and treatment potential factors. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients were evaluable for this analysis, 71 cases (patients with severe late toxicities) and 83 controls; thus, 46% of evaluable patients had a severe late toxicity. On multivariate analysis, significant variables correlated with the development of severe late toxicity, including older age (odds ratio, 1.062 per year; P=.0021) and radiation dose received by the inferior hypopharynx (odds ratio, 1.023 per Gy; P=.016). The subgroup of patients receiving ≤60 Gy to the inferior hypopharynx had a 40% rate of severe late toxicity compared with 56% for patients receiving >60 Gy. Oropharyngeal dose was not associated with this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Severe late toxicity following CCRT is common in long-term survivors. Age is the most significant factor, but hypopharyngeal dose also was associated.

Compliance with therapeutic guidelines in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group prospective gastrointestinal clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This report analyzes the adherence to radiation therapy protocol guidelines in contemporary Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal trials. We aim to provide insight into current standards and compliance of radiation therapy field design and administration. METHODS: From 1994 to 2006, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Committee of the RTOG initiated and completed 15 phase I-III clinical trials utilizing radiation therapy in the multimodality treatment of gastrointestinal cancers. In each protocol, details for planning and executing radiation therapy were outlined and each protocol contained scoring criteria for these components of radiation therapy, characterized according to per-protocol, variation acceptable and deviation unacceptable. Review of treatment planning and implementation was performed in all studies following therapy completion. RESULTS: Radiation therapy planning and implementation was reviewed in 2309 of 2312 (99.9%) patients. The mean rate of compliance over all for the 15 protocols was 65% (total of the 2309 analyzed patients). The mean variation acceptable rate was 21% whereas the mean deviation unacceptable rate was 5%. The mean "other" rate (no RT given or incomplete RT due to death, progression or refusal) was 8%. Two of the 15 trials (13%) had deviation unacceptable rates >10%. In four studies incorporating pre-treatment review of radiation therapy planning and treatment, compliance with protocol therapy was enhanced. CONCLUSIONS: The fidelity of radiation planning and execution detailed in protocol to actual therapy is heterogeneous, with a mean per-protocol rate of 65%. As clinical trials evolve, available technology should permit efficient pre-treatment review processes, thus facilitating compliance to protocol therapy. These analyses should also permit prospective analysis of outcome measures by compliance to therapy.

Pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines for radiation therapy: a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus panel atlas.

PURPOSE: To define a male and female pelvic normal tissue contouring atlas for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One male pelvis computed tomography (CT) data set and one female pelvis CT data set were shared via the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center. A total of 16 radiation oncologists participated. The following organs at risk were contoured in both CT sets: anus, anorectum, rectum (gastrointestinal and genitourinary definitions), bowel NOS (not otherwise specified), small bowel, large bowel, and proximal femurs. The following were contoured in the male set only: bladder, prostate, seminal vesicles, and penile bulb. The following were contoured in the female set only: uterus, cervix, and ovaries. A computer program used the binomial distribution to generate 95% group consensus contours. These contours and definitions were then reviewed by the group and modified. RESULTS: The panel achieved consensus definitions for pelvic normal tissue contouring in RTOG trials with these standardized names: Rectum, AnoRectum, SmallBowel, Colon, BowelBag, Bladder, UteroCervix, Adnexa_R, Adnexa_L, Prostate, SeminalVesc, PenileBulb, Femur_R, and Femur_L. Two additional normal structures whose purpose is to serve as targets in anal and rectal cancer were defined: AnoRectumSig and Mesorectum. Detailed target volume contouring guidelines and images are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus guidelines for pelvic normal tissue contouring were reached and are available as a CT image atlas on the RTOG Web site. This will allow uniformity in defining normal tissues for clinical trials delivering pelvic radiation and will facilitate future normal tissue complication research.

Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the definition of the clinical target volume for postoperative conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To define a prostate fossa clinical target volume (PF-CTV) for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials using postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An RTOG-sponsored meeting was held to define an appropriate PF-CTV after radical prostatectomy. Data were presented describing radiographic failure patterns after surgery. Target volumes used in previous trials were reviewed. Using contours independently submitted by 13 radiation oncologists, a statistical imputation method derived a preliminary "consensus" PF-CTV. RESULTS: Starting from the model-derived CTV, consensus was reached for a CT image-based PF-CTV. The PF-CTV should extend superiorly from the level of the caudal vas deferens remnant to >8-12 mm inferior to vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA). Below the superior border of the pubic symphysis, the anterior border extends to the posterior aspect of the pubis and posteriorly to the rectum, where it may be concave at the level of the VUA. At this level, the lateral border extends to the levator ani. Above the pubic symphysis, the anterior border should encompass the posterior 1-2 cm of the bladder wall; posteriorly, it is bounded by the mesorectal fascia. At this level, the lateral border is the sacrorectogenitopubic fascia. Seminal vesicle remnants, if present, should be included in the CTV if there is pathologic evidence of their involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on postoperative PF-CTV for RT after prostatectomy was reached and is available as a CT image atlas on the RTOG website. This will allow uniformity in defining PF-CTV for clinical trials that include postprostatectomy RT.

RTOG GU Radiation oncology specialists reach consensus on pelvic lymph node volumes for high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy to the pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk prostate cancer is required on several Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. Based on a prior lymph node contouring project, we have shown significant disagreement in the definition of pelvic lymph node volumes among genitourinary radiation oncology specialists involved in developing and executing current RTOG trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consensus meeting was held on October 3, 2007, to reach agreement on pelvic lymph node volumes. Data were presented to address the lymph node drainage of the prostate. Extensive discussion ensued to develop clinical target volume (CTV) pelvic lymph node consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained resulting in computed tomography image-based pelvic lymph node CTVs. Based on this consensus, the pelvic lymph node volumes to be irradiated include: distal common iliac, presacral lymph nodes (S(1)-S(3)), external iliac lymph nodes, internal iliac lymph nodes, and obturator lymph nodes. Lymph node CTVs include the vessels (artery and vein) and a 7-mm radial margin being careful to "carve out" bowel, bladder, bone, and muscle. Volumes begin at the L5/S1 interspace and end at the superior aspect of the pubic bone. Consensus on dose-volume histogram constraints for OARs was also attained. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on pelvic lymph node CTVs for radiation therapy to address high-risk prostate cancer was attained and is available as web-based computed tomography images as well as a descriptive format through the RTOG. This will allow for uniformity in evaluating the benefit and risk of such treatment.

Dose specification and quality assurance of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 95-17; a cooperative group study of iridium-192 breast implants as sole therapy.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 95-17 was a Phase I/II trial to evaluate multicatheter brachytherapy as the sole method of adjuvant breast radiotherapy for Stage I/II breast carcinoma after breast-conserving surgery. Low- or high-dose-rate sources were allowed. Dose prescription and treatment evaluation were based on recommendations in the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), Report 58 and included the parameters mean central dose (MCD), average peripheral dose, dose homogeneity index (DHI), and the dimensions of the low- and high-dose regions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three levels of quality assurance were implemented: (1) credentialing of institutions was required before entering patients into the study; (2) rapid review of each treatment plan was conducted before treatment; and (3) retrospective review was performed by the Radiological Physics Center in conjunction with the study chairman and RTOG dosimetry staff. RESULTS: Credentialing focused on the accuracy of dose calculation algorithm and compliance with protocol guidelines. Rapid review was designed to identify and correct deviations from the protocol before treatment. The retrospective review involved recalculation of dosimetry parameters and review of dose distributions to evaluate the treatment. Specifying both central and peripheral doses resulted in uniform dose distributions, with a mean dose homogeneity index of 0.83 +/- 0.06. CONCLUSIONS: Vigorous quality assurance resulted in a high-quality study with few deviations; only 4 of 100 patients were judged as representing minor variations from protocol, and no patient was judged as representing major deviation. This study should be considered a model for quality assurance of future trials.