Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 27, 2026
Y-90 Radioembolization and PD-1 Inhibitor as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: May 24, 2024
Radiation Quality and Workflow in NRG GY017: Anti-PD-L1 (Atezolizumab) as an Immune Primer or Concurrently With
Jyoti Mayadev1, Wei Deng2, Hayeon Kim3
1Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, UC San Diego Medical Center, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA.
Objectives:
Advances in radiation (RT) treatment planning enhance the need for uniform quality oversight on clinical trials. NRG GY-017 was a randomized trial of the anti-program ligand death 1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, before and concurrent (arm A) or concurrent with chemoradiaton (arm B) for locally advanced cervical cancer. We describe the prospectively collected pretreatment RT quality and workflow.
Methods:
Forty patients were consented and randomized. Thirty-seven patients submitted pretreatment RT plans for central review, and 36 patients ultimately received protocol therapy. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) contouring guidelines and dose specifics were outlined in the protocol, with volume and dose deviations specified as per protocol, minor and major variation. Each site had to pass a standardized IMRT credentialing process. Sites were required to submit an IMRT plan for physician expert contour target and organ-at-risk review in a rapid pretreatment manner. An expert physician then scored the contours and plan as per protocol or as a deviation. For major deviations, the sites were required to revise and resubmit the plans, which were then re-reviewed prior to protocol start.
Results:
The median follow-up time was 20 months. Thirty-seven participants had a central expert review of the pretreatment external beam radiation therapy plan. Thirteen plans (35%) were scored as a major deviation requiring revision: 11 secondary to contours (5 bowel and 6 nodal volumes) and 2 secondary to incorrect expansion on the volume or the dose distribution. The major deviation plans were resubmitted; however, 2 of them required revisions for a total of 3 plans. Because of the quality review, all patients had per-protocol scores prior to the treatment administration.
Conclusions:
Our data indicate that 35% of the baseline submitted advanced technology IMRT plans required revision and resubmission in order to meet protocol standards. RT plan quality workflow continues to evolve with advanced techniques and has implications in clinical trial review. Pretreatment plan review is an important quality measure for cervical cancer clinical trials.
