R-IDEAL: A framework for systematic clinical evaluation of technical innovations in radiation oncology

Frontiers in Oncology

Volumn 7, Issue APR, 2017, Pages

  Verkooijen, Helena M ^a   Kerkmeijer, Linda G W ^a   Fuller, Clifton D ^b   Huddart, Robbert ^c   Faivre Finn, Corinne ^d   Verheij, Marcel ^e   Mook, Stella ^a   Sahgal, Arjun ^f   Hall, Emma ^g   Schultz, Chris ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^e ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^f SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^g INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^h MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Design; Evaluation; Innovation; Methodology; MRI guided linear accelerator

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CONTROL; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DISEASE SIMULATION; DRUG SCREENING; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HYPOFRACTIONATED RADIOTHERAPY; LINEAR ACCELERATOR; LONG TERM CARE; METASTASIS; NEOPLASM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTION; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTION; RADIATION ONCOLOGY; SAFETY; TOXICITY; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

EID: 85018453765     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2234943X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00059     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Fraass BA, Moran JM. Quality, technology and outcomes: evolution and evaluation of new treatments and/or new technology. Semin Radiat Oncol (2012) 22:3-10. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2011.09.009
2. Bekelman JE, Hahn SM. The body of evidence for advanced technology in radiation oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst (2013) 105:6-7. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs508
3. Veldeman L, Madani I, Hulstaert F, De Meerleer G, Mareel M, De Neve W. Evidence behind use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies. Lancet Oncol (2008) 9:367-75. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70098-6
4. Peng G, Wang T, Yang KY, Zhang T, Li Q, Han J, et al. A prospective, randomized study comparing outcomes and toxicities of intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol (2012) 104:286-93. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2012.08.013
5. Faivre-Finn C, Snee M. Traditional phase 1 and 2 studies in thoracic radiation oncology should be abandoned. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2014) 90:487-9. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.044
6. Pignol JP, Janus C. The evaluation of innovation in radiation oncology-what can we do and what should we do? Acta Oncol (2015) 54:1-3. doi:10.3109/0284186X.2015.1067719
7. Zietman A, Ibbott G. A clinical approach to technology assessment: how do we and how should we choose the right treatment? Semin Radiat Oncol (2012) 22:11-7. doi:10.1016/j.semradonc.2011.09.008
8. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM; Balliol Collaboration, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet (2009) 374:1089-96. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7
9. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet (2009) 374:1105-12. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
10. Sedrakyan A, Campbell B, Merino JG, Kuntz R, Hirst A, McCulloch P. IDEAL-D: a rational framework for evaluating and regulating the use of medical devices. BMJ (2016) 353:i2372. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2372
11. Raaymakers BW, Lagendijk JJ, Overweg J, Kok JG, Raaijmakers AJ, Kerkhof EM, et al. Integrating a 1.5 T MRI scanner with a 6 MV accelerator: proof of concept. Phys Med Biol (2009) 54:N229-37. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/12/N01
12. Crijns SP, Raaymakers BW, Lagendijk JJ. Proof of concept of MRI-guided tracked radiation delivery: tracking one-dimensional motion. Phys Med Biol (2012) 57:7863-72. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/23/7863
13. Langendijk JA, Lambin P, De Ruysscher D, Widder J, Bos M, Verheij M. Selection of patients for radiotherapy with protons aiming at reduction of side effects: the model-based approach. Radiother Oncol (2013) 107:267-73. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.007
14. Kerkmeijer LG, Fuller CD, Verkooijen HM, Verheij M, Choudhury A, Harrington K, et al. The MRI-Linear accelerator consortium: evidence-based clinical introduction of an innovation in radiation oncology connecting researchers, methodology, data collection, quality assurance and technical development. Front Oncol (2016) 6:215. doi:10.3389/fonc.2016.00215
15. McAteer H, Cosh E, Freeman G, Pandit A, Wood P, Lilford R. Cost-effectiveness analysis at the development phase of a potential health technology: examples based on tissue engineering of bladder and urethra. J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2007) 1:343-9. doi:10.1002/term.36
16. Bennette CS, Ramsey SD, McDermott CL, Carlson JJ, Basu A, Veenstra DL. Predicting low accrual in the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Clinical Trials. J Natl Cancer Inst (2016) 108:324. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv324
17. Young RC. Cancer clinical trials-a chronic but curable crisis. N Engl J Med (2010) 363:306-9. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1005843
18. James S, Rao SV, Granger CB. Registry-based randomized clinical trials-a new clinical trial paradigm. Nat Rev Cardiol (2015) 12:312-6. doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2015.33
19. Relton C, Torgerson D, O'Cathain A, Nicholl J. Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the "cohort multiple randomised controlled trial" design. BMJ (2010) 340:c1066. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1066
20. Fallowfield L, Jenkins V. Psychosocial/survivorship issues in breast cancer: are we doing better? J Natl Cancer Inst (2015) 107:335. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju335
21. Movsas B. PROceeding with the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events. JAMA Oncol (2015) 1:1059-60. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2689
22. Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, Reeve BB, Castro KM, Rogak LJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol (2015) 1:1051-9. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2639
23. Skripcak T, Belka C, Bosch W, Brink C, Brunner V, Buttner D, et al. Creating a data exchange strategy for radiotherapy research: towards federated databases and anonymised public datasets. Radiother Oncol (2014) 113:303-9. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2014.10.001
24. Yu JB, Soulos PR, Herrin J, Cramer LD, Potosky AL, Roberts KB, et al. Proton versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care and early toxicity. J Natl Cancer Inst (2013) 105:25-32. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs463
25. Nutting CM, Morden JP, Harrington KJ, Urbano TG, Bhide SA, Clark C, et al. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol (2011) 12:127-36. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4
26. Pignol JP, Olivotto I, Rakovitch E, Gardner S, Sixel K, Beckham W, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute radiation dermatitis. J Clin Oncol (2008) 26:2085-92. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2488
27. Chan C, Lang S, Rowbottom C, Guckenberger M, Faivre-Finn C, IASLC Advanced Radiation Technology Committee. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer: current status and future developments. J Thorac Oncol (2014) 9:1598-608. doi:10.1097/JTO.0000000000000346