RESUMO
ABSTRACT: Institutional radiation safety committees review research studies with radiation exposure. However, ensuring that the potential patient benefit and knowledge gained merit the radiation risks involved often necessitates revisions that inadvertently delay protocol activations. This quality-improvement study analyzed protocols, identified factors associated with approval time by a radiation safety committee, and developed guidelines to expedite reviews without compromising quality. Clinical protocols submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's Radiation Research Safety Committee (RRSC) for review between 2017 and 2021 were studied. Protocol characteristics, review outcome, stipulations, and approval times were summarized. Statistical analysis (Spearman's rho) was used to investigate stipulations and approval time; rank-sum analysis (Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon) was used to determine whether approval time differed by protocol characteristics. One hundred ten (110) protocols were analyzed. Approximately two-thirds of protocols used approved radiopharmaceuticals to aid investigational therapy trials. Twenty-three percent (23%) of protocols received RRSC approval, and 73% had approval withheld with stipulations, which included requests for edits or additional information. Submissions had a median of three stipulations. Median and mean RRSC approval times were 62 and 80.1 d, and 41% of protocols received RRSC approval after IRB approval. RRSC approval time was positively correlated with stipulations (Spearman's rho = 0. 632, p < 0.001). RRSC approval time was longer for studies using investigational new drugs (median 80 d) than approved radiopharmaceuticals (median 57 d, p = 0.05). The review process is lengthy and may benefit from changes, including publishing standardized radiation safety language and commonly required documents and encouraging timely response to stipulations.
Assuntos
Compostos Radiofarmacêuticos , Humanos , Compostos Radiofarmacêuticos/uso terapêutico , Compostos Radiofarmacêuticos/normas , Pennsylvania , Protocolos Clínicos/normas , Universidades , Proteção Radiológica/normas , Melhoria de QualidadeRESUMO
METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients with BR after primary treatment of PC who received imaging with 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT at our institution between January 2010 and January 2019. PET/CT results were compared with biopsy, conventional imaging results, and/or response to PC therapy. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT performance statistics and effects on treatment planning were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients with a median age of 71 years (range, 47-90 years) and median serum prostate-specific antigen level of 1.6 ng/mL (0.02-186.7 ng/mL) were included. Three hundred thirty-six 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT scans were analyzed and classified as positive (65%), negative (25%), or equivocal (10%) based on radiology reports. Sensitivity was 93% (95% confidence interval, 86%-96%) and specificity was 63% (95% confidence interval, 45%-77%). Of patients with known management recommendations post-PET/CT, scan results changed or influenced pre-PET/CT management plans in 73%, and 58% of recommendations involved treatment modality decisions. Overall, 82% of patients' actual management was concordant with post-PET/CT recommendations. Of evaluable patients, 116 (35%) had some form of post-PET radiotherapy included in their care plans, with 95% receiving radiotherapy at a PET-avid target. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest single-institutional cohort to date, 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT showed value in the workup of PC in the setting of BR, with noteworthy influence over clinical management decisions. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether PET/CT-based changes in management are associated with improved outcomes.