Search

Quality assurance in radiotherapy (QART) is essential to ensure the scientific integrity of a clinical trial. This paper reports the findings of the retrospective QART assessment for all centres that participated in PORTEC-3; a randomised controlled trial that compared pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy to the pelvis followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The trial showed an overall survival benefit for the addition of the chemotherapy in the management of women with high-risk endometrial cancer. Clinicians were invited to upload a randomly selected case/s treated at each of the participating sites. Panel reviewers analysed the contours to certify that the target volumes and organ at risk structures were contoured according to guidelines. The results were categorised into acceptable, minor variation, major variation or unevaluable. The radiotherapy plans were dosimetrically evaluated using the well-established Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) protocol. Between August 2010 and January 2018, data from 146 patients of 686 consecutively treated patients were retrospectively reviewed. All 16 Australia and New Zealand and 71 of 77 international centres uploaded data for evaluation. In total, 3514 dosimetric and contour variables were reviewed. Of these, 3136 variables were deemed acceptable (89.2%), with 335 minor (9.6%) and 43 major variations (1.2%). Major contour variations included the clinical target volume vaginal vault, clinical target volume parametria and differential planning target volume vault expansion. The results of the QART assessment confirmed high uniformity and low rates of both minor and major deviations in contouring and dosimetry in all sites. This supports the safe introduction of the PORTEC-3 treatment protocol into routine clinical practice. • Radiotherapy benchmarking reduces the major and minor deviations noted in contouring and dosimetry. • Incorporation of a quality QART programme reduces source bias and facilitates adoption of the trial results. • Inclusion of real-time QART will improve and standardise international radiotherapy quality in future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: Since 2005, radiation oncology trainees in Australia and New Zealand have had to undertake a piece of original research during training, and submit a manuscript, as first author, for senior peer-review. Satisfactory completion of this requirement is one component of eligibility to sit the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists Fellowship examinations. The purpose of this study was to examine the value of this curriculum requirement, including the publication rates and potential barriers to trainee research. Materials and methods: An online survey was sent to 116 radiation oncologists/trainees who trained since the mandatory research requirement was introduced (2005–2011). Questions concerned research topics, publications, subsequent research activity, perceptions on barriers to research and aids to conducting research during training. A web-based search of PubMed by author name was carried out to complete and verify publication statistics. Results: In total, 108 (93.1%) of the 116 trainees across 20 centres who submitted their research papers to the Radiation Oncology Faculty Research Committee were successful in meeting the required standard first time. Half of these trainees ultimately published their paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Of trainees responding to the survey, 62% presented their research at a scientific meeting. Most of the studies were either retrospective (62.3%) or dosimetry/physics projects (10.1%). The main problems encountered in conducting projects were competing clinical commitments and lack of dedicated research time. Notably, long ethics approval processes, lack of supervision and statistical support for projects were not considered barriers. Conclusion: This mandatory research requirement ensures trainees initiate and complete at least one project during their training. Since the introduction of this curriculum component, half of the research projects have resulted in publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Increased ‘protected time’ and training in scientific writing and methods may improve publication rates and quality. This first review of the Australian and New Zealand radiation oncology trainee research requirement highlights areas that need to be addressed to further support and foster a research culture among junior radiation oncologists. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]