SU-E-T-148: Benchmarks and Pre-Treatment Reviews: A Study of Quality Assurance Effectiveness
- UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
Purpose: To determine the impact benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews have on improving the quality of submitted clinical trial data. Methods: Benchmarks are used to evaluate a site’s ability to develop a treatment that meets a specific protocol’s treatment guidelines prior to placing their first patient on the protocol. A pre-treatment review is an actual patient placed on the protocol in which the dosimetry and contour volumes are evaluated to be per protocol guidelines prior to allowing the beginning of the treatment. A key component of these QA mechanisms is that sites are provided timely feedback to educate them on how to plan per the protocol and prevent protocol deviations on patients accrued to a protocol. For both benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews a dose volume analysis (DVA) was performed using MIM softwareTM. For pre-treatment reviews a volume contour evaluation was also performed. Results: IROC Houston performed a QA effectiveness analysis of a protocol which required both benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews. In 70 percent of the patient cases submitted, the benchmark played an effective role in assuring that the pre-treatment review of the cases met protocol requirements. The 35 percent of sites failing the benchmark subsequently modified there planning technique to pass the benchmark before being allowed to submit a patient for pre-treatment review. However, in 30 percent of the submitted cases the pre-treatment review failed where the majority (71 percent) failed the DVA. 20 percent of sites submitting patients failed to correct their dose volume discrepancies indicated by the benchmark case. Conclusion: Benchmark cases and pre-treatment reviews can be an effective QA tool to educate sites on protocol guidelines and to minimize deviations. Without the benchmark cases it is possible that 65 percent of the cases undergoing a pre-treatment review would have failed to meet the protocols requirements.Support: U24-CA-180803.
- OSTI ID:
- 22545273
- Journal Information:
- Medical Physics, Vol. 42, Issue 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0094-2405
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities
WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts