ENT COBRA (Consortium for Brachytherapy Data Analysis): interdisciplinary standardized data collection system for head and neck patients treated with interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy)

Purpose Aim of the COBRA (Consortium for Brachytherapy Data Analysis) project is to create a multicenter group (consortium) and a web-based system for standardized data collection. Material and methods GEC-ESTRO (Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie – European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology) Head and Neck (H&N) Working Group participated in the project and in the implementation of the consortium agreement, the ontology (data-set) and the necessary COBRA software services as well as the peer reviewing of the general anatomic site-specific COBRA protocol. The ontology was defined by a multicenter task-group. Results Eleven centers from 6 countries signed an agreement and the consortium approved the ontology. We identified 3 tiers for the data set: Registry (epidemiology analysis), Procedures (prediction models and DSS), and Research (radiomics). The COBRA-Storage System (C-SS) is not time-consuming as, thanks to the use of “brokers”, data can be extracted directly from the single center's storage systems through a connection with “structured query language database” (SQL-DB), Microsoft Access®, FileMaker Pro®, or Microsoft Excel®. The system is also structured to perform automatic archiving directly from the treatment planning system or afterloading machine. The architecture is based on the concept of “on-purpose data projection”. The C-SS architecture is privacy protecting because it will never make visible data that could identify an individual patient. This C-SS can also benefit from the so called “distributed learning” approaches, in which data never leave the collecting institution, while learning algorithms and proposed predictive models are commonly shared. Conclusions Setting up a consortium is a feasible and practicable tool in the creation of an international and multi-system data sharing system. COBRA C-SS seems to be well accepted by all involved parties, primarily because it does not influence the center's own data storing technologies, procedures, and habits. Furthermore, the method preserves the privacy of all patients.

[1]  G. Kovacs,et al.  Endoscopy-guided brachytherapy for sinonasal and nasopharyngeal recurrences. , 2015, Brachytherapy.

[2]  W. Mackillop,et al.  Associations between community income and cancer survival in Ontario, Canada, and the United States. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  Vincenzo Valentini,et al.  International data-sharing for radiotherapy research: an open-source based infrastructure for multicentric clinical data mining. , 2014, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[4]  P. Hoskin,et al.  Innovative technologies in radiation therapy: brachytherapy. , 2006, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[5]  Andre Dekker,et al.  Radiomics: the process and the challenges. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[6]  J. Finkelstein,et al.  How accurate are physicians' clinical predictions of survival and the available prognostic tools in estimating survival times in terminally ill cancer patients? A systematic review. , 2001, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[7]  I. Tannock,et al.  Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  P. Lambin,et al.  Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology—multifactorial decision support systems , 2013, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[9]  A. Neugut,et al.  Racial disparities in treatment and survival among women with early-stage breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Andre Dekker,et al.  VATE: VAlidation of high TEchnology based on large database analysis by learning machine , 2014 .

[11]  W. Mackillop,et al.  Impact of adoption of chemoradiotherapy on the outcome of cervical cancer in Ontario: results of a population-based cohort study. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  E. Yorke,et al.  Improving normal tissue complication probability models: the need to adopt a "data-pooling" culture. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Andre Dekker,et al.  Creating a data exchange strategy for radiotherapy research: Towards federated databases and anonymised public datasets , 2014, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[14]  V. Valentini,et al.  SPIDER: Managing Clinical Data of Cancer Patients Treated through a Multidisciplinary Approach by a Palm Based System , 2008 .

[15]  R. Weichselbaum,et al.  Measurable impact: multimodality therapy of head and neck cancer. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  J. Hendry,et al.  Variability in the radiosensitivity of normal cells and tissues. Report from a workshop organised by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology in Edinburgh, UK, 19 September 1998. , 1999, International journal of radiation biology.

[17]  J. Pignon,et al.  Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[18]  T. Mok,et al.  Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  E. Vokes,et al.  Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. , 2004, Seminars in oncology.

[20]  C DeShazer,et al.  Racial differences in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  S. Tyldesley,et al.  Association between age and the utilization of radiotherapy in Ontario. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  G. Kovács Modern head and neck brachytherapy: from radium towards intensity modulated interventional brachytherapy , 2014, Journal of contemporary brachytherapy.

[23]  S. Bentzen,et al.  Evaluation of early and late toxicities in chemoradiation trials. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  A. Zietman Falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism: the unholy trinity of scientific writing. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[25]  K. Kahn,et al.  Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival of patients with stage III colon cancer diagnosed after age 75 years. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  C. Booth Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in the Randomized Controlled Trial and Beyond: Informing the Future with Lessons from the Past , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[27]  Patrick Granton,et al.  Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. , 2012, European journal of cancer.

[28]  P. Dirix,et al.  Outcome after Re-Irradiation of Head and Neck Cancer Patients , 2010, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie.

[29]  T. Panzarella,et al.  Accuracy of survival prediction by palliative radiation oncologists. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[30]  Benjamin Haibe-Kains,et al.  Radiomic feature clusters and Prognostic Signatures specific for Lung and Head & Neck cancer , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[31]  Comment on "Future radiotherapy practice will be based on evidence from retrospective interrogation of linked clinical data sources rather than prospective randomized controlled clinical trials" [Med. Phys. 41(3) 030601 (3pp.) (2014)]. , 2014, Medical physics.

[32]  James M. Wilson,et al.  Gantt charts: A centenary appreciation , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..