Reasearch Awards nomination

Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Radiation Oncology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research

Quality assurance of radiotherapy in the ongoing EORTC 22042–26042 trial for atypical and malignant meningioma: results from the dummy runs and prospective individual case Reviews

Mehtap Coskun1, William Straube2, Coen W Hurkmans34, Christos Melidis5, Patricia F de Haan6, Salvador Villà7, Sandra Collette5 and Damien C Weber48*

Author Affiliations

1 From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Ankara Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

2 From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

3 From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

4 QA Strategic Committee, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium

5 From the Departments of Head Quarter, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium

6 From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

7 From the Departments of Institut Català d’Oncologia, HU Germans Trias, Badalona, Catalonia, Spain

8 From the Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Radiation Oncology, Geneva, CH-1211, Switzerland

For all author emails, please log on.

Radiation Oncology 2013, 8:23  doi:10.1186/1748-717X-8-23

Published: 30 January 2013

Abstract

Background

The ongoing EORTC 22042–26042 trial evaluates the efficacy of high-dose radiotherapy (RT) in atypical/malignant meningioma. The results of the Dummy Run (DR) and prospective Individual Case Review (ICR) were analyzed in this Quality Assurance (QA) study.

Material/methods

Institutions were requested to submit a protocol compliant treatment plan for the DR and ICR, respectively. DR-plans (n=12) and ICR-plans (n=50) were uploaded to the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center of Advanced Technology Consortium server (http://atc.wustl.edu/ webcite) and were assessed prospectively.

Results

Major deviations were observed in 25% (n=3) of DR-plans while no minor deviations were observed. Major and minor deviations were observed in 22% (n=11) and 10% (n=5) of the ICR-plans, respectively. Eighteen% of ICRs could not be analyzed prospectively, as a result of corrupted or late data submission. CTV to PTV margins were respected in all cases. Deviations were negatively associated with the number of submitted cases per institution (p=0.0013), with a cutoff of 5 patients per institutions. No association (p=0.12) was observed between DR and ICR results, suggesting that DR’s results did not predict for an improved QA process in accrued brain tumor patients.

Conclusions

A substantial number of protocol deviations were observed in this prospective QA study. The number of cases accrued per institution was a significant determinant for protocol deviation. These data suggest that successful DR is not a guarantee for protocol compliance for accrued patients. Prospective ICRs should be performed to prevent protocol deviations.

Keywords:
Radiotherapy; EORTC; Quality assurance; Meningioma; Dummy run; Individual case review