Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: Quality assurance experience with the randomized neuropathic bone pain trial (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, 96.05)
Author: Roos, D.
Davis, S.
Turner, S.
O'Brien, P.
Spry, N.
Burmeister, B.
Hoskin, P.
Ball, D.
Citation: Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2003; 67(2):207-212
Publisher: Elsevier Sci Ireland Ltd
Issue Date: 2003
ISSN: 0167-8140
Statement of
Daniel E. Roos, Sidney R. Davis, Sandra L. Turner, Peter C. O’Brien, Nigel A. Spry, Bryan H. Burmeister, Peter J. Hoskin, David L. Ball
Abstract: <h4>Background and purpose</h4>Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.05 is a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a single 8 Gy with 20 Gy in five fractions of radiotherapy (RT) for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases. This paper summarizes the quality assurance (QA) activities for the first 234 patients (accrual target 270).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Independent audits to assess compliance with eligibility/exclusion criteria and appropriateness of treatment of the index site were conducted after each cohort of approximately 45 consecutive patients. Reported serious adverse events (SAEs) in the form of cord/cauda equina compression or pathological fracture developing at the index site were investigated and presented in batches to the Independent Data Monitoring Committee. Finally, source data verification of the RT prescription page and treatment records was undertaken for each of the first 234 patients to assess compliance with the protocol.<h4>Results</h4>Only one patient was found conclusively not to have genuine neuropathic pain, and there were no detected 'geographical misses' with RT fields. The overall rate of detected infringements for other eligibility criteria over five audits (225 patients) was 8% with a dramatic improvement after the first audit. There has at no stage been a statistically significant difference in SAEs by randomization arm. There was a 22% rate of RT protocol variations involving ten of the 14 contributing centres, although the rate of major dose violations (more than +/-10% from protocol dose) was only 6% with no statistically significant difference by randomization arm (P=0.44).<h4>Conclusions</h4>QA auditing is an essential but time-consuming component of RT trials, including those assessing palliative endpoints. Our experience confirms that all aspects should commence soon after study activation.
Keywords: Quality assurance
Neuropathic pain
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8140(03)00026-4
Published version:
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 5
Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.