Quality assurance experience with the randomized neuropathic bone pain trial (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, 96.05)

Background and purpose: 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). Materials and methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. Crown Copyright (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Randomized trial of 8 Gy in 1 versus 20 Gy in 5 fractions of radiotherapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, TROG 96.05)

Background and purpose: Despite numerous randomized trials investigating radiotherapy (RT) fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, there are very few data on RT for bone metastases causing pain with a neuropathic component. The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group undertook a randomized trial comparing the efficacy of a single 8 Gy (8/1) with 20 Gy in 5 fractions (20/5) for this type of pain. Materials and methods: Eligible patients had radiological evidence of bone metastases from a known malignancy with no change in systemic therapy within 6 weeks before or anticipated within 4 weeks after RT, no other metastases along the distribution of the neuropathic pain and no clinical or radiological evidence of cord/cauda equina compression. All patients gave written informed consent. Primary endpoints were pain response within 2 months of commencement of RT and time to treatment failure (TTF). The hypothesis was that 8/1 is at least as effective as 20/5 and the planned sample size was 270 patients. Results: Between February 1996 and December 2002, 272 patients were randomized (8/1:20/5 = 137:135) from 15 centres (Australia 11, New Zealand 3, UK 1). The commonest primary cancers were lung (31%), prostate (29%) and breast (8%); index sites were spine (89%), rib (9%), other (2%); 72% of patients were males and the median age was 67 (range 2989). The median overall survival (95% CI) for all randomized patients was 4.8 mo (4.2-5.7 mo). The intention-to-treat overall response rates (95% Cl) for 8/1 vs 20/5 were 53% (45-62%) vs 61% (53-70%), P = 0.18. Corresponding figures for complete response were 26% (18-34%) vs 27% (19-35%), P = 0.89. The estimated median TTFs (95% CI) were 2.4 mo (2.0-3.3 mo) vs 3.7 mo (3.1-5.9 mo) respectively. The hazard ratio (95% Cl) for the comparison of TTF curves was 1.35 (0.99-1.85), log-rank P = 0.056. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of re-treatment, cord compression or pathological fracture by arm. Conclusions: 8/1 was not shown to be as effective as 20/5, nor was it statistically significantly worse. Outcomes were generally poorer for 8/1, although the quantitative differences were relatively small. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.