References of "Baumert, B. G"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailQuality assurance in the EORTC 22033-26033/CE5 phase III randomized trial for low grade glioma: The digital individual case review
Fairchild, A.; Weber, D. C.; Bar-Deroma, R. et al

in Radiotherapy & Oncology (2012), 103(3), 287-292

Introduction: The phase III EORTC 22033-26033/NCIC CE5 intergroup trial compares 50.4 Gy radiotherapy with up-front temozolomide in previously untreated low-grade glioma. We describe the digital EORTC ... [more ▼]

Introduction: The phase III EORTC 22033-26033/NCIC CE5 intergroup trial compares 50.4 Gy radiotherapy with up-front temozolomide in previously untreated low-grade glioma. We describe the digital EORTC individual case review (ICR) performed to evaluate protocol radiotherapy (RT) compliance. Methods: Fifty-eight institutions were asked to submit 1-2 randomly selected cases. Digital ICR datasets were uploaded to the EORTC server and accessed by three central reviewers. Twenty-seven parameters were analysed including volume delineation, treatment planning, organ at risk (OAR) dosimetry and verification. Consensus reviews were collated and summary statistics calculated. Results: Fifty-seven of seventy-two requested datasets from forty-eight institutions were technically usable. 31/57 received a major deviation for at least one section. Relocation accuracy was according to protocol in 45. Just over 30% had acceptable target volumes. OAR contours were missing in an average of 25% of cases. Up to one-third of those present were incorrectly drawn while dosimetry was largely protocol compliant. Beam energy was acceptable in 97% and 48 patients had per protocol beam arrangements. Conclusions: Digital RT plan submission and review within the EORTC 22033-26033 ICR provide a solid foundation for future quality assurance procedures. Strict evaluation resulted in overall grades of minor and major deviation for 37% and 32%, respectively. © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. [less ▲]

Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDummy run and conformity indices in the ongoing EORTC low-grade glioma trial 22033-26033: First evaluation of quality of radiotherapy planning
Musat, E.; Roelofs, E.; Bar-Deroma, R. et al

in Radiotherapy & Oncology (2010), 95(2), 218-224

Purpose: Early assessment of radiotherapy (RT) quality in the ongoing EORTC trial comparing primary temozolomide versus RT in low-grade gliomas. Materials and methods: RT plans provided for dummy cases ... [more ▼]

Purpose: Early assessment of radiotherapy (RT) quality in the ongoing EORTC trial comparing primary temozolomide versus RT in low-grade gliomas. Materials and methods: RT plans provided for dummy cases were evaluated and compared against expert plans. We analysed: (1) tumour and organs-at-risk delineation, (2) geometric and dosimetric characteristics, (3) planning parameters, compliance with dose prescription and Dmax for OAR (4) indices: RTOG conformity index (CI), coverage factor (CF), tissue protection factor (PF); conformity number (CN = PF× CF); dose homogeneity in PTV (U). Results: Forty-one RT plans were evaluated. Only two (5%) centres were requested to repeat CTV-PTV delineations. Three (7%) plans had a significant under-dosage and dose homogeneity in one deviated > 10%. Dose distribution was good with mean values of 1.5, 1, 0.68, and 0.68 (ideal values = 1) for CI, CF, PF, and CN, respectively. CI and CN strongly correlated with PF and they correlated with PTV. Planning with more beams seems to increase PTV Dmin, improving CF. U correlated with PTV Dmax. Conclusion: Preliminary results of the dummy run procedure indicate that most centres conformed to protocol requirements. To quantify plan quality we recommend systematic calculation of U and either CI or CN, both of which measure the amount of irradiated normal brain tissue. © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 1 (0 ULg)