Quality assurance in the 22991 EORTC ROG trial in localized prostate cancer: dummy run and individual case review.

INTRODUCTION: EORTC trial 22991 was designed to evaluate the addition of concomitant and adjuvant short-term hormonal treatments to curative radiotherapy in terms of disease-free survival for patients with intermediate risk localized prostate cancer. In order to assess the compliance to the 3D conformal radiotherapy protocol guidelines, all participating centres were requested to participate in a dummy run procedure. An individual case review was performed for the largest recruiting centres as well. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT-data of an eligible prostate cancer patient were sent to 30 centres including a description of the clinical case. The investigator was requested to delineate the volumes of interest and to perform treatment planning according to the protocol. Thereafter, the investigators of the 12 most actively recruiting centres were requested to provide data on five randomly selected patients for an individual case review. RESULTS: Volume delineation varied significantly between investigators. Dose constraints for organs at risk (rectum, bladder, hips) were difficult to meet. In the individual case review, no major protocol deviations were observed, but a number of dose reporting problems were documented for centres using IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results of this quality assurance program were satisfactory. The efficacy of the combination of a dummy run procedure with an individual case review is confirmed in this study, as none of the evaluated patient files harboured a major protocol deviation. Quality assurance remains a very important tool in radiotherapy to increase the reliability of the trial results. Special attention should be given when designing quality assurance programs for more complex irradiation techniques.

Use of DNA profiles for investigation using a simulated national DNA database: Part I. Partial SGM Plus profiles.

In traditional criminal investigation, uncertainties are often dealt with using a combination of common sense, practical considerations and experience, but rarely with tailored statistical models. For example, in some countries, in order to search for a given profile in the national DNA database, it must have allelic information for six or more of the ten SGM Plus loci for a simple trace. If the profile does not have this amount of information then it cannot be searched in the national DNA database (NDNAD). This requirement (of a result at six or more loci) is not based on a statistical approach, but rather on the feeling that six or more would be sufficient. A statistical approach, however, could be more rigorous and objective and would take into consideration factors such as the probability of adventitious matches relative to the actual database size and/or investigator's requirements in a sensible way. Therefore, this research was undertaken to establish scientific foundations pertaining to the use of partial SGM Plus loci profiles (or similar) for investigation.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.