Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2025
Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant
Published on: October 6, 2023
Prospective Peer Review in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of Protocol Deviations at a Large Multicenter Institution to
Manav Shah1, Ajay Kapur1, Louis Potters2
1Northwell, New Hyde Park, New York; Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York.
Purpose:
Peer review is essential for radiation therapy (RT) quality assurance and recent studies show that peer review upstream of treatment planning is feasible and can improve RT quality. Herein, we describe protocol deviations detected by our peer review process by the type of deviation, disease site, and physician characteristics.
Methods And Materials:
Once contoured, cases within our department undergo prospective peer review with each case assigned a grade (A, B, or C). "A" cases require no changes, whereas "B" and "C" cases have protocol deviations requiring minor or major modification, respectively, prior to treatment planning. We reviewed all radiation cases with curative intent from 2017 to 2022. We analyzed cases receiving a B score by type of protocol deviation, disease site, and physician characteristics. The 2-proportion Z-test was performed to determine differences in the proportion of B scores.
Results:
Thirteen thousand ninety-one curative cases underwent peer review across our institution; 58.6% of cases received an "A," 41.3% received a "B," and 0.1% received a "C." Common errors in cases receiving a B score were a mismatch between the prescription and directive (34.2%) or a deviation in the planning target volume (32.8%). The disease sites that accounted for the largest volume of all B scores were head and neck (20.2%), prostate (13.2%), breast (9.1%), and lung (7.9%). Generalists had a greater percentage of B scores compared to specialists (46.9% vs 34.3%, P < .0002). No significant difference in B scores was observed between tenure and nontenure physicians (40.5% vs 42.2%, P = .0511).
Conclusions:
Peer-review contour rounds were performed on 100% of curative cases where 41% required modification prior to treatment planning, highlighting the importance of prospective contour peer review for all patients to catch discrepancies upstream of treatment planning. Implementing peer review in radiation oncology can mitigate common deviations in RT planning, irrespective of disease site or physician expertise.
More Related Videos
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
08:25Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
Related Concept Videos
01:30Psychosurgery
Historical Development of Psychosurgery
In the 1930s, Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz introduced a surgical procedure designed...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:13Radiological Investigation III: Pulmonary Angiogram and PET Scan
Pulmonary Angiogram
A Pulmonary Angiogram is an invasive procedure involving injecting a contrast medium through a catheter threaded into the pulmonary artery or the right side of the heart to visualize the pulmonary vasculature. Computed Tomography (CT) scans have mainly replaced this...