Evaluating Peer Review of Palliative Radiation Plans at a Canadian Tertiary Care Cancer Center

Peer review (PR) of palliative-intent radiation plans is an important but understudied component of quality assurance. This retrospective review aims to improve our understanding of palliative PR by examining the characteristics of reviewed plans and peer feedback along with the associated time burden of two different types of PR processes.

This single-institution, quality assurance project assessed palliative PR between 2018 and 2020. Initially, the PR involved a multi-disciplinary team PR. Subsequently, it transitioned to independent PR by a single physician. Characteristics of reviewed plans and feedback on PR were captured and abstracted. Time requirements of PR were based on self-reported estimates and attendance records.

A total of 1942 cases were reviewed, representing 85.7% (1942/2266) of all palliative-intent plans between 2018 and 2020. A total of 41.1% (n=799) were simple (2D/3D) radiation plans while 56.0% (n=1087) were complex (volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or tomotherapy) plans. Approximately one-third (30.4%, n=590) of all plans were stereotactic treatments. The rate of any peer feedback was 2.3% (n=45), while the rate of a specific recommended or implemented change was 1.2% (n=24) and 0.9% (n=18), respectively. PR before the start of treatment was associated with more frequent recommended (p=0.005) and implemented changes (p=0.008). Most other factors, including plan complexity and use of stereotactic radiation, were not predictive in this analysis. Comparing the independent versus team PR approach, there was no significant difference in recommended or implemented changes. The mean±standard deviation (SD) staff time required per plan reviewed was 36±6 and 37±6 minutes, including 21±6 and 10±6 minutes of physician time, for team and independent PR, respectively.

This work highlights the high frequency of complex and stereotactic radiation in the palliative setting, along with the importance of timely PR and the potential benefit of reviewing even simple, 2D/3D radiation plans. Additionally, from a process perspective, our work showed that independent PR may require less dedicated physician time.