Main Page

From Roqac

Revision as of 19:47, 7 November 2011 by GwenpEscalante (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search



<p><p>This MediaWiki Site is intended for use by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trial Group <a href="">(NCIC CTG)</a> Radiation Oncology Quality Assurance Committee (ROQAC) and Medical Physics Working Group (MPWG). The ROQAC was formed to oversee quality control of radiotherapy on NCIC CTG studies. The Committee reviews/amends the radiotherapeutic sections of new protocols and oversees real-time review of the prescription, dose-distribution, and radiotherapy fields for patients on trials involving radiotherapy. The NCIC CTG ROQAC and MPWG also develop and support policies and principles for the QA of radiotherapy clinical trials conducted by the NCIC CTG. The private section of the NCIC CTG (which requires a password) is <a href="">here</a>. These wiki pages are used to facilitate discussions by <a href="ROQAC and MPWG committee members">ROQAC and MPWG committee members</a>. Comments are welcome.


Please create an account for yourself by clicking on the 'Log in / create account' icon on the top right. Please provide a 'real name' and/or a 'nickname' so that we'll be able to identify who is making the comments.  For a little help with MediaWiki click <a href="ROQAC help">here</a>. There is a bit of a learning curve; so if you have questions, please add them to the ROQAC and MPWG MediaWiki <a href="ROQAC help">help page</a>.

[edit] ROQAC Vision Statement for a Radiotherapy Data Warehouse

The <a href="ROQAC current vision">current vision statement</a> for the radiotherapy data warehouse needs updating. Please edit <a href="ROQAC new vision">this page</a> to reflect your thoughts on what the vision statement for the data warehouse should be. Specific questions about the vision statement:
1. Is this a reasonable way to share the development of this document ?

I think so. It takes a little getting used to editing in the <a href="">ibs</a> wiki markup language, put the WYSIWYG editor also works reasonably well. <a href="User:Cfield">Colin</a> 08:49, 4 May 2008 (EDT) </dd>

2. Should this vision statement have specific time frames ?


3. ?


[edit] Questions for Kristy's Survey

Please add to this list.

  • What should the focus of the Radiation Oncology Quality Assurance Committe be ?
  • What should the focus of the Medical Physics Working Group be?
  • Should all RT trials opened by the NCIC CTG be approved by the ROQAC (including inter-group trials)?
  • Should we be applying for grants to support our activities ?
  • What are the goals of the ROQAC and MPWG for 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years from now ?
  • Should there be more or less overlap between the membership of the ROQAC and MPWG ?
  • Is a national RT database a worthwhile and achievable goal ?
  • What should be the top priority for MPWG?  for ROQAC?
  • What should the top 3 priorities be for MPWG?  for ROQAC?
  • What are alternatives to QARC/RTOG credentialling of institutions
  • How do we deal with the newest studies being proposed? For example, comparing IMRT for liver mets versus US ablation (Laura Dawson). This study clearly involves target tracking or gating.
  •  ?

[edit] Questions for QARC (& HN.6)

The format of the 2008 NCIC CTG Fall Meeting has changed to a special one-time forum where important issues that face the Group as a whole, Scientific Committees, and member centres will be addressed. Attendance is limited to only those invited. Please see, or contact Wendy Parulekar for more information.

Our next face to face meeting will likely occur during the 2009 Spring meeting. To make this time as productive as possible, I'd like to have some reasonably well-defined questions that we attempt to answer.  Please add to this list.  Prior to the meeting, I'll create an agenda and distribute this list. <a href="User:Cfield">Colin</a> 09:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

  • HN.6 status
  • Support for Rapid?  funding issues?
  • remote review functionality ?  Using RRT? WebEx? Terminal Server ?
  • what is the functionality of MAX (sp?) cache ?
  • what does deployment of MAX (sp?) cache to PMH and/or Kingston require ? Hardware ? software ? Training ?
  • timelines for remote review functionality and deployment of MAX cache
  • Can the MPWG or ROQAC do anything to help ? Can representatives from MPWG or ROQAC participate in the rapid review process in order to gain familiarity with the system.
  •  ?

[edit] Medical Physics Working Group

Discussion topics:

  • The NCIC Clinical Trials Group hosts a private area of the NCIC CTG website <a href=""></a>. The website is useful for downloading protocols and consent forms, <a href="">internet marketing consultant</a> finding names and e-mails of committee members, and reading newsletters on-line. Individual passwords have been created for each participant. Your new username and password will be sent to you on request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the web adminstrator at <a href=""></a>. The ROQAC has its own area on the private side accessible by the link: <a href=""></a>. Here, you will find the vision statement, meeting and teleconference minutes, members lists and protocol review tools for both ROQAC and the MPWG.  (Orest's note: The members list of ROQAC members on the web-site does not agree with the most recent published list in the Trials Report).
  • Develop position paper on advanced radiation therapy techniques used in clinical trials such as IMRT and tumor motion management. Specify methods of instituiton credentialing.
  • Promote awareness of quality assurance in clinical trials through: collaboration with professional organizations to author standards documents and guidelines (such as CAPCA); collaboration with professional colleges to ensure competency in trial participation is assessed as part of professional certification; conducting workshops at professional meetings; and publishing in peer reviewed journals.
  • Estabalish policy on ROQAC and MPWG members being reviewers on clinical trial team.Is there a conflict of interest if the protocol is reviewed and then cases are reviewed by the same person? (Orest: I hope not, since I've done this twice already: once with PROFIT and now with PR.13. Up until now, it was not clear to me what the mechanism was for selecting physicist case reviewers once the protocol itself was reviewed. My view is that there is no conflict of interest since the interest for both the case reviewer and the protocol reviewer is the same: high quality standard for the trial. The drawback is that the two reviews are not independent, so if a problem was overlooked in the protocol review it would not likely be caught during case review.) The protocol reviewer will select the most appropriate qualified medical physicist(s) to act as reviewer(s) for the protocol (Just as an associate editor selects reviewers for journal articles) This should be recognized as professional service pertaining to CCPM credits.
  • Comments on upcoming protocols
  •  ?


Personal tools

דומיין בעברית  דומיין  דומין  תוכנה לניהול  קשרי לקוחות  CRM, ניהול קשרי לקוחות  דומין בעברית  פורומים  ספרדית  גיבוי