Critical Impact of Radiotherapy Protocol Compliance and Quality in the Treatment of Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: Results From TROG 02.02
Top Cited Papers
- 20 June 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 28 (18), 2996-3001
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.27.4498
Abstract
Purpose To report the impact of radiotherapy quality on outcome in a large international phase III trial evaluating radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus tirapazamine for advanced head and neck cancer. Patients and Methods The protocol required interventional review of radiotherapy plans by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC). All plans and radiotherapy documentation underwent post-treatment review by the Trial Management Committee (TMC) for protocol compliance. Secondary review of noncompliant plans for predicted impact on tumor control was performed. Factors associated with poor protocol compliance were studied, and outcome data were analyzed in relation to protocol compliance and radiotherapy quality. Results At TMC review, 25.4% of the patients had noncompliant plans but none in which QARC-recommended changes had been made. At secondary review, 47% of noncompliant plans (12% overall) had deficiencies with a predicted major adverse impact on tumor control. Major deficiencies were unrelated to tumor subsite or to T or N stage (if N+), but were highly correlated with number of patients enrolled at the treatment center (< five patients, 29.8%; ≥ 20 patients, 5.4%; P < .001). In patients who received at least 60 Gy, those with major deficiencies in their treatment plans (n = 87) had a markedly inferior outcome compared with those whose treatment was initially protocol compliant (n = 502): −2 years overall survival, 50% v 70%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.99; P < .001; and 2 years freedom from locoregional failure, 54% v 78%; HR, 2.37; P < .001, respectively. Conclusion These results demonstrate the critical importance of radiotherapy quality on outcome of chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Centers treating only a few patients are the major source of quality problems.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Tirapazamine, Cisplatin, and Radiation Versus Cisplatin and Radiation for Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (TROG 02.02, HeadSTART): A Phase III Trial of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology GroupJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2010
- Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology GroupInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 2005
- Compliance to the prescribed dose and overall treatment time in five randomized clinical trials of altered fractionation in radiotherapy for head-and-neck carcinomasInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 2003
- EORTC Radiotherapy Group: achievements and future projectsEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2002
- Quality assurance audit in an Australasian phase III trial of accelerated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (TROG 91.01)Australasian Radiology, 1999
- Influence of a sampling review process for radiation oncology quality assurance in cooperative group clinical trials — results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) analysisRadiotherapy and Oncology, 1995
- Low-Dose Involved Field Radiation after Chemotherapy in Advanced Hodgkin Disease: A Southwest Oncology Group Randomized StudyAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1994
- The search for therapeutic gain in the combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapyRadiotherapy and Oncology, 1988