IMRT credentialing for prospective trials using institutional virtual phantoms: results of a joint European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer and Radiological Physics Center project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) credentialing for a EORTC study was performed using an anthropomorphic head phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC; RPCPH). Institutions were retrospectively requested to irradiate their institutional phantom (INSTPH) using the same treatment plan in the framework of a Virtual Phantom Project (VPP) for IMRT credentialing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT data set of the institutional phantom and measured 2D dose matrices were requested from centers and sent to a dedicated secure EORTC uploader. Data from the RPCPH and INSTPH were thereafter centrally analyzed and inter-compared by the QA team using commercially available software (RIT; ver.5.2; Colorado Springs, USA). RESULTS: Eighteen institutions participated to the VPP. The measurements of 6 (33%) institutions could not be analyzed centrally. All other centers passed both the VPP and the RPC ±7%/4 mm credentialing criteria. At the 5%/5 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing), 11(92%) as compared to 12 (100%) centers pass the credentialing process with RPCPH and INSTPH (p = 0.29), respectively. The corresponding pass rate for the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing) was 2 (17%) and 9 (75%; p = 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT dosimetry gamma evaluations in a single plane for a H&N prospective trial using the INSTPH measurements showed agreement at the gamma index criteria of ±5%/5 mm (90% of pixels passing) for a small number of VPP measurements. Using more stringent, criteria, the RPCPH and INSTPH comparison showed disagreement. More data is warranted and urgently required within the framework of prospective studies.

Peri-operative management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. Joint position paper by members of the working group on Perioperative Haemostasis of the Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research (GTH), the working group on Perioperative Coagulation of the Austrian Society for Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (ÖGARI) and the Working Group Thrombosis of the European Society for Cardiology (ESC).

An increasing number of patients suffering from cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease (CAD), are treated with aspirin and/or clopidogrel for the prevention of major adverse events. Unfortunately, there are no specific, widely accepted recommendations for the perioperative management of patients receiving antiplatelet therapy. Therefore, members of the Perioperative Haemostasis Group of the Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research (GTH), the Perioperative Coagulation Group of the Austrian Society for Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Intensive Care (ÖGARI) and the Working Group Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) have created this consensus position paper to provide clear recommendations on the perioperative use of anti-platelet agents (specifically with semi-urgent and urgent surgery), strongly supporting a multidisciplinary approach to optimize the treatment of individual patients with coronary artery disease who need major cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. With planned surgery, drug eluting stents (DES) should not be used unless surgery can be delayed for ≥12 months after DES implantation. If surgery cannot be delayed, surgical revascularisation, bare-metal stents or pure balloon angioplasty should be considered. During ongoing antiplatelet therapy, elective surgery should be delayed for the recommended duration of treatment. In patients with semi-urgent surgery, the decision to prematurely stop one or both antiplatelet agents (at least 5 days pre-operatively) has to be taken after multidisciplinary consultation, evaluating the individual thrombotic and bleeding risk. Urgently needed surgery has to take place under full antiplatelet therapy despite the increased bleeding risk. A multidisciplinary approach for optimal antithrombotic and haemostatic patient management is thus mandatory.

Fate of clinical research studies after ethical approval--follow-up of study protocols until publication.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical studies are ultimately not fully published in peer-reviewed journals. Underreporting of clinical research is wasteful and can result in biased estimates of treatment effect or harm, leading to recommendations that are inappropriate or even dangerous. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of clinical studies approved 2000-2002 by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Freiburg, Germany. Published full articles were searched in electronic databases and investigators contacted. Data on study characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. We characterized the cohort, quantified its publication outcome and compared protocols and publications for selected aspects. RESULTS: Of 917 approved studies, 807 were started and 110 were not, either locally or as a whole. Of the started studies, 576 (71%) were completed according to protocol, 128 (16%) discontinued and 42 (5%) are still ongoing; for 61 (8%) there was no information about their course. We identified 782 full publications corresponding to 419 of the 807 initiated studies; the publication proportion was 52% (95% CI: 0.48-0.55). Study design was not significantly associated with subsequent publication. Multicentre status, international collaboration, large sample size and commercial or non-commercial funding were positively associated with subsequent publication. Commercial funding was mentioned in 203 (48%) protocols and in 205 (49%) of the publications. In most published studies (339; 81%) this information corresponded between protocol and publication. Most studies were published in English (367; 88%); some in German (25; 6%) or both languages (27; 6%). The local investigators were listed as (co-)authors in the publications corresponding to 259 (62%) studies. CONCLUSION: Half of the clinical research conducted at a large German university medical centre remains unpublished; future research is built on an incomplete database. Research resources are likely wasted as neither health care professionals nor patients nor policy makers can use the results when making decisions.