BackgroundWe performed a clinical audit of preoperative rectal cancer treatment at two European radiotherapy centres (Poland and Spain). The aim was to independently verify adherence to a selection of indicators of treatment quality and to identify any notable inter-institutional differences.MethodsA total of 162 patients, in Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) 68 and in Greater Poland Cancer Centre (GPCC) 94, diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer and treated with preoperative radiotherapy or radio-chemotherapy were included in retrospective study. A total of 7 quality control measures were evaluated: waiting time, multidisciplinary treatment approach, portal verification, in vivo dosimetry, informed consent, guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, and patient monitoring during treatment.ResultsSeveral differences were observed. Waiting time from pathomorphological diagnosis to initial consultation was 31 (ICO) vs. 8 (GPCC) days. Waiting time from the first visit to the beginning of the treatment was twice as long at the ICO. At the ICO, 82% of patient experienced treatment interruptions. The protocol for portal verification was the same at both institutions. In vivo dosimetry is not used for this treatment localization at the ICO. The ICO utilizes locally-developed guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, while the GPCC is currently developing its own guidelines.ConclusionsAn independent external clinical audit is an excellent approach to identifying and resolving deficiencies in quality control procedures. We identified several procedures amenable to improvement. Both institutions have since implemented changes to improve quality standards. We believe that all radiotherapy centres should perform a comprehensive clinical audit to identify and rectify deficiencies.

Introduction. The rapid development of new radiotherapy technologies, such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or tomotherapy, has resulted in the capacity to deliver a more homogenous dose in the target. However, the higher doses associated with these techniques are a reason for concern because they may increase the dose outside the target. In the present study, we compared 3DCRT, IMRT and tomotherapy to assess the doses to organs at risk (OARs) resulting from photon beam irradiation and scattered neutrons. Material and methods. The doses to OARs outside the target were measured in an anthropomorphic Alderson phantom using thermoluminescence detectors (TLD 100) 6Li (7.5%) and 7Li (92.5%). The neutron fluence rate [cm−2·s−1] at chosen points inside the phantom was measured with gold foils (0.5 cm diameter, mean surface density of 0.108 g/cm3). Results. The doses [Gy] delivered to the OARs for 3DCRT, IMRT and tomotherapy respectively, were as follows: thyroid gland (0.62 ± 0.001 vs. 2.88 ± 0.004 vs. 0.58 ± 0.003); lung (0.99 ± 0.003 vs. 4.78 ± 0.006 vs. 0.67 ± 0.003); bladder (80.61 ± 0.054 vs. 53.75 ± 0.070 vs. 34.71 ± 0.059); and testes (4.38 ± 0.017 vs. 6.48 ± 0.013 vs. 4.39 ± 0.020). The neutron dose from 20 MV X-ray beam accounted for 0.5% of the therapeutic dose prescribed in the PTV. The further from the field edge the higher the contribution of this secondary radiation dose (from 8% to ~45%). Conclusion. For tomotherapy, all OARs outside the therapeutic field are well-spared. In contrast, IMRT achieved better sparing than 3DCRT only in the bladder. The photoneutron dose from the use of high-energy X-ray beam constituted a notable portion (0.5%) of the therapeutic dose prescribed to the PTV.

As radiotherapy practice and processes become more complex, the need to assure quality control becomes ever greater. At present, no international consensus exists with regards to the optimal quality control indicators for radiotherapy; moreover, few clinical audits have been conducted in the field of radiotherapy. The present article describes the aims and current status of the international IROCA "Improving Radiation Oncology Through Clinical Audits" project. The project has several important aims, including the selection of key quality indicators, the design and implementation of an international audit, and the harmonization of key aspects of radiotherapy processes among participating institutions. The primary aim is to improve the processes that directly impact clinical outcomes for patients. The experience gained from this initiative may serve as the basis for an internationally accepted clinical audit model for radiotherapy.

Every quality control in mammography provides essential information about the functioning of a laboratory. Apart from recommended standard sterility, it should be remembered that equipment should always be adjusted and repaired.

Purpose: To perform a clinical audit to assess adherence to standard clinical practice for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients undergoing radiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment in four European countries. Materials and methods: Multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of 221 patients treated for rectal cancer in 2015 at six European cancer centres. Clinical indicators applicable to general radiotherapy processes were evaluated. All data were obtained from electronic medical records. Results: The audits were performed in the year 2017. We found substantial inter-centre variability in adherence to standard clinical practices: 1) presentation of cases at departmental clinical sessions (range, 0-100%) or multidisciplinary tumour board (50-95%); 2) pretreatment MRI (61.5-100%) and thoracoabdominal CT (15.0-100%). Large inter-centre differences were observed in the mean interval between biopsy and first visit to the radiotherapy department (range, 21.6-58.6 days) and between the first visit and start of treatment (15.1-38.8 days). Treatment interruptions ≥ 1 day occurred in 43.9% (2.5-90%) of cases overall. Treatment compensation was performed in 2.1% of cases. Treatment was completed in the prescribed time in 55.7% of cases. Conclusions: This multi-institutional clinical audit revealed that most centres adhered to standard clinical practices for most of the radiotherapy processes-related variables assessed. However, the audit revealed marked inter-centre variability for certain quality indicators, particularly inconsistent record keeping. Multiple targets for improvement and/or harmonisation were identified, confirming the value of routine clinical audits to detect potential deviations from standard clinical practice.