Selection criteria for early breast cancer patients in the DBCG proton trial – The randomised phase III trial strategy

Background and purpose Adjuvant radiotherapy of internal mammary nodes (IMN) improves survival in high-risk early breast cancer patients but inevitably leads to more dose to heart and lung. Target coverage is often compromised to meet heart/lung dose constraints. We estimate heart and lung dose when target coverage is not compromised in consecutive patients. These estimates are used to guide the choice of selection criteria for the randomised Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) Proton Trial.Materials and methods 179 breast cancer patients already treated with loco-regional IMN radiotherapy from 18 European departments were included. If the clinically delivered treatment plan did not comply with defined target coverage requirements, the plan was modified retrospectively until sufficient coverage was reached. The choice of selection criteria was based on the estimated number of eligible patients for different heart and lung dose thresholds in combination with proton therapy capacity limitations and dose-response relationships for heart and lung.Results Median mean heart dose was 3.0 Gy (range, 1.1-8.2 Gy) for left-sided and 1.4 Gy (0.4-11.5 Gy) for right-sided treatment plans. Median V17Gy/V20Gy (hypofractionated/normofractionated plans) for ipsilateral lung was 31% (9-57%). The DBCG Radiotherapy Committee chose mean heart dose ≥ 4 Gy and/or lung V17Gy/V20Gy ≥ 37% as thresholds for inclusion in the randomised trial. Using these thresholds, we estimate that 22% of patients requiring loco-regional IMN radiotherapy will be eligible for the trial.Conclusion The patient selection criteria for the DBCG Proton Trial are mean heart dose ≥ 4 Gy and/or lung V17Gy/V20Gy ≥ 37%

DBCG hypo trial validation of radiotherapy parameters from a national data bank versus manual reporting

<p><b>Introduction:</b> The current study evaluates the data quality achievable using a national data bank for reporting radiotherapy parameters relative to the classical manual reporting method of selected parameters.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> The data comparison is based on 1522 Danish patients of the DBCG hypo trial with data stored in the Danish national radiotherapy data bank. In line with standard DBCG trial practice selected parameters were also reported manually to the DBCG database. Categorical variables are compared using contingency tables, and comparison of continuous parameters is presented in scatter plots.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> For categorical variables 25 differences between the data bank and manual values were located. Of these 23 were related to mistakes in the manual reported value whilst the remaining two were a wrong classification in the data bank. The wrong classification in the data bank was related to lack of dose information, since the two patients had been treated with an electron boost based on a manual calculation, thus data was not exported to the data bank, and this was not detected prior to comparison with the manual data. For a few database fields in the manual data an ambiguity of the parameter definition of the specific field is seen in the data. This was not the case for the data bank, which extract all data consistently.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> In terms of data quality the data bank is superior to manually reported values. However, there is a need to allocate resources for checking the validity of the available data as well as ensuring that all relevant data is present. The data bank contains more detailed information, and thus facilitates research related to the actual dose distribution in the patients.</p

DBCG hypo trial validation of radiotherapy parameters from a national data bank versus manual reporting

Introduction: The current study evaluates the data quality achievable using a national data bank for reporting radiotherapy parameters relative to the classical manual reporting method of selected parameters. Methods: The data comparison is based on 1522 Danish patients of the DBCG hypo trial with data stored in the Danish national radiotherapy data bank. In line with standard DBCG trial practice selected parameters were also reported manually to the DBCG database. Categorical variables are compared using contingency tables, and comparison of continuous parameters is presented in scatter plots. Results: For categorical variables 25 differences between the data bank and manual values were located. Of these 23 were related to mistakes in the manual reported value whilst the remaining two were a wrong classification in the data bank. The wrong classification in the data bank was related to lack of dose information, since the two patients had been treated with an electron boost based on a manual calculation, thus data was not exported to the data bank, and this was not detected prior to comparison with the manual data. For a few database fields in the manual data an ambiguity of the parameter definition of the specific field is seen in the data. This was not the case for the data bank, which extract all data consistently. Conclusions: In terms of data quality the data bank is superior to manually reported values. However, there is a need to allocate resources for checking the validity of the available data as well as ensuring that all relevant data is present. The data bank contains more detailed information, and thus facilitates research related to the actual dose distribution in the patients

DBCG hypo trial validation of radiotherapy parameters from a national data bank versus manual reporting

Introduction: The current study evaluates the data quality achievable using a national data bank for reporting radiotherapy parameters relative to the classical manual reporting method of selected parameters. Methods: The data comparison is based on 1522 Danish patients of the DBCG hypo trial with data stored in the Danish national radiotherapy data bank. In line with standard DBCG trial practice selected parameters were also reported manually to the DBCG database. Categorical variables are compared using contingency tables, and comparison of continuous parameters is presented in scatter plots. Results: For categorical variables 25 differences between the data bank and manual values were located. Of these 23 were related to mistakes in the manual reported value whilst the remaining two were a wrong classification in the data bank. The wrong classification in the data bank was related to lack of dose information, since the two patients had been treated with an electron boost based on a manual calculation, thus data was not exported to the data bank, and this was not detected prior to comparison with the manual data. For a few database fields in the manual data an ambiguity of the parameter definition of the specific field is seen in the data. This was not the case for the data bank, which extract all data consistently. Conclusions: In terms of data quality the data bank is superior to manually reported values. However, there is a need to allocate resources for checking the validity of the available data as well as ensuring that all relevant data is present. The data bank contains more detailed information, and thus facilitates research related to the actual dose distribution in the patients