Quality assurance| Volume 111, ISSUE 3, P400-405, June 2014

Download started.


Does a central review platform improve the quality of radiotherapy for rectal cancer? Results of a national quality assurance project


      Background and purpose

      Quality assurance (QA) for radiation treatment has become a priority since poorly delivered radiotherapy can negatively influence patient outcome. Within a national project we evaluated the feasibility of a central review platform and its role in improving uniformity of clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in daily practice.

      Material and methods

      All Belgian radiotherapy departments were invited to participate and were asked to upload CTVs for rectal cancer treatment onto a secured server. These were centrally reviewed and feedback was given per e-mail. For each five consecutive patients per centre, the overlap parameter dice coefficient (DC) and the volumetric parameters volumetric ratio (RV) and commonly contoured volume (VCC) were calculated.


      Twenty departments submitted 1224 eligible cases of which 909 were modified (74.3%). There was a significant increase in RV and VCC between the first ten patients per centre and the others. This was not seen for DC. Statistical analysis did not show a further significant improvement in delineation over the entire review period.


      Central review was feasible and increased the uniformity in CTV delineation in the first ten rectal cancer patients per centre. The observations in this study can be used to optimize future QA initiatives.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Radiotherapy and Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Siegel R.
        • Naishadham D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2012.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62: 10-29
        • Bilimoria K.Y.
        • Phillips J.D.
        • Rock C.E.
        • et al.
        Effect of surgeon training, specialization, and experience on outcomes for cancer surgery: a systematic review of the literature.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16: 1799-1808
        • Hohenberger W.
        • Merkel S.
        • Hermanek P.
        Volume and outcome in rectal cancer surgery: the importance of quality management.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013; 28: 197-206
        • Bosch S.L.
        • Nagtegaal I.D.
        The importance of the pathologist’s role in assessment of the quality of the mesorectum.
        Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep. 2012; 8: 90-98
        • Quirke P.
        • Steele R.
        • Monson J.
        • et al.
        Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial.
        Lancet. 2009; 373: 821-828
        • Peters L.J.
        • O’Sullivan B.
        • Giralt J.
        • et al.
        Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02.
        J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 2996-3001
        • Abrams R.A.
        • Winter K.A.
        • Regine W.F.
        • et al.
        Failure to adhere to protocol specified radiation therapy guidelines was associated with decreased survival in RTOG 9704 – a phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy for patients with resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: 809-816
        • Jullumstro E.
        • Wibe A.
        • Lydersen S.
        • Edna T.H.
        Violation of treatment guidelines – hazard for rectal cancer patients.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012; 27: 103-109
        • Ohri N.
        • Shen X.
        • Dicker A.P.
        • Doyle L.A.
        • Harrison A.S.
        • Showalter T.N.
        Radiotherapy protocol deviations and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of cooperative group clinical trials.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105: 387-393
      1. Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre guidelines on rectal cancer.

        • Roels S.
        • Duthoy W.
        • Haustermans K.
        • et al.
        Definition and delineation of the clinical target volume for rectal cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65: 1129-1142
        • Weber D.C.
        • Tomsej M.
        • Melidis C.
        • Hurkmans C.
        QA makes a clinical trial stronger: evidence-based medicine in radiation therapy.
        Radiother Oncol. 2012; 105: 4-8
        • Goodman K.A.
        Quality assurance for radiotherapy: a priority for clinical trials.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105: 376-377
        • Purdy J.A.
        Quality assurance issues in conducting multi-institutional advanced technology clinical trials.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71: S66-S70
        • Fairchild A.
        • Aird E.
        • Fenton P.A.
        • et al.
        EORTC Radiation Oncology Group quality assurance platform: establishment of a digital central review facility.
        Radiother Oncol. 2012; 103: 279-286
        • Palta J.R.
        • Frouhar V.A.
        • Dempsey J.F.
        Web-based submission, archive, and review of radiotherapy data for clinical quality assurance: a new paradigm.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 57: 1427-1436
        • Van Houtte P.
        • Bourgois N.
        • Renard F.
        • Huget P.
        • D’hoore W.
        • Scalliet P.
        A federal audit of the Belgian radiotherapy departments in breast cancer treatment.
        Radiother Oncol. 2007; 83: 178-186
        • Fuller C.D.
        • Nijkamp J.
        • Duppen J.C.
        • et al.
        Prospective randomized double-blind pilot study of site-specific consensus atlas implementation for rectal cancer target volume delineation in the cooperative group setting.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 79: 481-489
        • Nijkamp J.
        • de Haas-Kock D.F.
        • Beukema J.C.
        • et al.
        Target volume delineation variation in radiotherapy for early stage rectal cancer in the Netherlands.
        Radiother Oncol. 2012; 102: 14-21
        • Fenton P.
        • Hurkmans C.
        • Gulyban A.
        • et al.
        Quality assurance of the EORTC 22043-30041 trial in post-operative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: results of the Dummy Run procedure.
        Radiother Oncol. 2013; 107: 346-351
        • Fairchild A.
        • Weber D.C.
        • Bar-Deroma R.
        • et al.
        Quality assurance in the EORTC 22033-26033/CE5 phase III randomized trial for low grade glioma: the digital individual case review.
        Radiother Oncol. 2012; 103: 287-292
        • Matzinger O.
        • Poortmans P.
        • Giraud J.Y.
        • et al.
        Quality assurance in the 22991 EORTC ROG trial in localized prostate cancer: dummy run and individual case review.
        Radiother Oncol. 2009; 90: 285-290
        • Fotina I.
        • Lutgendorf-Caucig C.
        • Stock M.
        • Potter R.
        • Georg D.
        Critical discussion of evaluation parameters for inter-observer variability in target definition for radiation therapy.
        Strahlenther Onkol. 2012; 188: 160-167