Quality assurance of the 22961 EORTC trial. A phase III study of the optimal combination of hormonal adjuvant treatment by LHRH analogue and radiation therapy for the management of locally advanced prostate cancer: the dummy run

• Published in: Radiotherapy and oncology 2004-10, Vol.73 (1), p.11-20
• Main Authors: Kouloulias, Vassilis E., Giraud, Jean-Yves, Davis, Bernard J., Dusserre, Andrée, Zurlo, Alfredo, Bolla, Michel
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adenocarcinoma - radiotherapy; Adenocarcinoma - therapy; Aged; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Dummy run; EORTC; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone - administration & dosage; Humans; Male; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy; Quality assurance; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy - methods; Radiotherapy Dosage; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 0167-8140; 1879-0887
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.08.005

The EORTC trial 22961, opened in 1997, was designed to investigate the optimal combination of hormonal adjuvant treatment by LHRH analogue and radiation therapy for the management of locally advanced prostate cancer. A dummy run was established to assess centre compliance to the radiotherapy protocol. Medical and anatomical data obtained from 37 CT slices (5 mm thickness) of an eligible patient were sent to 19 participating centres, which were asked to complete a questionnaire according to their practice and plan a theoretical radiotherapy treatment. The Planning Target Volume 1 (PTV1) should include prostate, seminal vesicles, internal iliac lymph nodes and inferior part of common iliac lymph nodes (extended pelvic fields). Centres which usually irradiate with small pelvic fields (N0 patients), were allowed to include the prostate, seminal vesicles and internal iliac lymph nodes plus a safety margin of 2 cm. For the Planning Target Volume 2 (PTV2), a safety margin of 1.5 to 2 cm should be around the prostate and seminal vesicles. Checks included patient positioning, treatment simulation, target volume definition, treatment set-up and clinical controls during treatment. Eleven institutions with actual 81% of patients' accrual in the protocol have responded. All centres used a supine treatment position and positioning lasers for the set-up, while 73 and 45% of the centres performed cystograms and used rectal contrast, respectively. Among the participating centres, 45% and 55% used blocks and MLC, respectively, to treat patients. Extended pelvic fields in terms of PTV1 were used by 63% of the centres. The remaining centres treated a small PTV1 with a 10–20 mm margin around to CTV1. All centres defined PTV2 according to protocol guidelines. Doses to PTV1 and PTV2 were correctly prescribed. It was difficult to assess the treated volumes due to a lack of standardisation in DVH calculations. In general, centres participating in the dummy run adhered to the guidelines. The dummy run enhances the reliability of the conclusions of the trial.