↓ Skip to main content

Quality assurance of the SCOPE 1 trial in oesophageal radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quality assurance of the SCOPE 1 trial in oesophageal radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13014-017-0916-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy Wills, Rhydian Maggs, Geraint Lewis, Gareth Jones, Lisette Nixon, John Staffurth, Tom Crosby, on behalf of the SCOPE 1 trial management group and collaborators

Abstract

SCOPE 1 was the first UK based multi-centre trial involving radiotherapy of the oesophagus. A comprehensive radiotherapy trials quality assurance programme was launched with two main aims: 1. To assist centres, where needed, to adapt their radiotherapy techniques in order to achieve protocol compliance and thereby enable their participation in the trial. 2. To support the trial's clinical outcomes by ensuring the consistent planning and delivery of radiotherapy across all participating centres. A detailed information package was provided and centres were required to complete a benchmark case in which the delineated target volumes and organs at risk, dose distribution and completion of a plan assessment form were assessed prior to recruiting patients into the trial. Upon recruiting, the quality assurance (QA) programme continued to monitor the outlining and planning of radiotherapy treatments. Completion of a questionnaire was requested in order to gather information about each centre's equipment and techniques relating to their trial participation and to assess the impact of the trial nationally on standard practice for radiotherapy of the oesophagus. During the trial, advice was available for individual planning issues, and was circulated amongst the SCOPE 1 community in response to common areas of concern using bulletins. 36 centres were supported through QA processes to enable their participation in SCOPE1. We discuss the issues which have arisen throughout this process and present details of the benchmark case solutions, centre questionnaires and on-trial protocol compliance. The range of submitted benchmark case GTV volumes was 29.8-67.8cm(3); and PTV volumes 221.9-513.3 cm(3). For the dose distributions associated with these volumes, the percentage volume of the lungs receiving 20Gy (V20Gy) ranged from 20.4 to 33.5%. Similarly, heart V40Gy ranged from 16.1 to 33.0%. Incidence of incorrect outlining of OAR volumes increased from 50% of centres at benchmark case, to 64% on trial. Sixty-five percent of centres, who returned the trial questionnaire, stated that their standard practice had changed as a result of their participation in the SCOPE1 trial. The SCOPE 1 QA programme outcomes lend support to the trial's clinical conclusions. The range of patient planning outcomes for the benchmark case indicated, at the outset of the trial, the significant degree of variation present in UK oesophageal radiotherapy planning outcomes, despite the presence of a protocol. This supports the case for increasingly detailed definition of practice by means of consensus protocols, training and peer review. The incidence of minor inconsistencies of technique highlights the potential for improved QA systems and the need for sufficient resource for this to be addressed within future trials. As indicated in questionnaire responses, the QA exercise as a whole has contributed to greater consistency of oesophageal radiotherapy in the UK via the adoption into standard practice of elements of the protocol. The SCOPE1 trial is an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, ISRCTN47718479 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 22%
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,576,855
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,429
of 2,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,822
of 324,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#18
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.