Structure and Processes of Existing Practice in Radiotherapy Peer Review: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Enhanced head and neck radiotherapy target definition through multidisciplinary delineation and peer review: A prospective single-center study

This study evaluates the benefit of weekly delineation and peer review by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) of radiation oncologists (ROs), radiologists (RXs), and nuclear medicine (NM) physicians in defining primary and lymph node tumor volumes (GTVp and GTVn) for head and neck cancer (HNC) radiotherapy. This study includes 30 consecutive HNC patients referred for definitive curative (chemo)-radiotherapy. Imaging data including head and neck MRI, [18F]-FDG-PET and CT scan were evaluated by the MDT. The RO identified the 'undeniable' tumor as GTVp_core and determined GTVp_max, representing the maximum tumoral volume. The MDT delineation (MDT-D) by RX and NM physicians outlined their respective primary GTVs (GTVp_RX and GTVp_NM). During the MDT meeting (MDT-M), these contours were discussed to reach a consensus on the final primary GTV (GTVp_final). In the comparative analysis of various GTVp delineations, we performed descriptive statistics and assessed two MDT-M factors: 1) the added value of MDT-M, which includes the section of GTVp_final outside GTVp_core but within GTVp_RX or GTVp_NM, and 2) the part of GTVp_final that deviates from GTVp_max, representing the area missed by the RO. For GTVn, discussions evaluated lymph node extent and malignancy, documenting findings and the frequency of disagreements. The average GTVp core and max volumes were 19.5 cc (range: 0.4-90.1) and 22.1 cc (range: 0.8-106.2), respectively. Compared to GTVp_core, MDT-D to GTVp_final added an average of 3.3 cc (range: 0-25.6) and spared an average of 1.3 cc (0-15.6). Compared to GTVp_max, MDT-D and -M added an average of 2.7 cc (range: 0-20.3) and removed 2.3 cc (0-21.3). The most frequent GTVn discussions included morphologically suspicious nodes not fixing on [18F]-FDG-PET and small [18F]-FDG-PET negative retropharyngeal lymph nodes. Multidisciplinary review of target contours in HNC is essential for accurate treatment planning, ensuring precise tumor and lymph node delineation, potentially improving local control and reducing toxicity.

Autodelineation of Treatment Target Volume for Radiation Therapy Using Large Language Model-Aided Multimodal Learning

PURPOSE

Artificial intelligence-aided methods have made significant progress in the auto-delineation of normal tissues. However, these approaches struggle with the auto-contouring of radiation therapy target volume. Our goal was to model the delineation of target volume as a clinical decision-making problem, resolved by leveraging large language model-aided multimodal learning approaches.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A vision-language model, termed Medformer, has been developed, employing the hierarchical vision transformer as its backbone and incorporating large language models to extract text-rich features. The contextually embedded linguistic features are seamlessly integrated into visual features for language-aware visual encoding through the visual language attention module. Metrics, including Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intersection over union (IOU), and 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95), were used to quantitatively evaluate the performance of our model. The evaluation was conducted on an in-house prostate cancer data set and a public oropharyngeal carcinoma data set, totaling 668 subjects.

RESULTS

Our Medformer achieved a DSC of 0.81 ± 0.10 versus 0.72 ± 0.10, IOU of 0.73 ± 0.12 versus 0.65 ± 0.09, and HD95 of 9.86 ± 9.77 mm versus 19.13 ± 12.96 mm for delineation of gross tumor volume on the prostate cancer dataset. Similarly, on the oropharyngeal carcinoma dataset, it achieved a DSC of 0.77 ± 0.11 versus 0.72 ± 0.09, IOU of 0.70 ± 0.09 versus 0.65 ± 0.07, and HD95 of 7.52 ± 4.8 mm versus 13.63 ± 7.13 mm, representing significant improvements (P < 0.05). For delineating the clinical target volume, Medformer achieved a DSC of 0.91 ± 0.04, IOU of 0.85 ± 0.05, and HD95 of 2.98 ± 1.60 mm, comparable with other state-of-the-art algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

Auto-delineation of the treatment target based on multimodal learning outperforms conventional approaches that rely purely on visual features. Our method could be adopted into routine practice to rapidly contour clinical target volume/gross tumor volume.

Peer Review in Radiation Oncology: Where Does the Middle East, North Africa, and Türkiye Region Stand?

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the status of radiation oncology peer review procedures across the Middle East, North Africa, and Türkiye (MENAT) region.

METHODS

A cross-sectional electronic survey was conducted among radiotherapy centers in the MENAT region in March 2024. It assessed peer review practices, departmental demographics, perceived importance of peer review, and potential barriers.

RESULTS

Data from 177 radiation oncology centers revealed varying peer review implementation across the MENAT region. Egypt had the highest participation (16.4%) among all responders. Most centers (31%) treated 500-1,000 cases annually. The majority (77.4%) implemented peer review, with varying levels between countries and across different centers. Advanced radiotherapy techniques significantly correlated with implementation of peer review (P < .05). Peer review meetings were mostly scheduled on a weekly basis (46%) and organized by radiation oncologists (84.7%). Target volume contouring (89%) and radiotherapy prescription (82%) were frequently peer-reviewed. Respondents with peer review at their institutions significantly valued peer review for education, adherence to guidelines, improving planning protocols, and reducing variation in practice institutions without peer review (P < .05). The most frequently reported barriers to peer review were having a high number of patients (56%) and shortage of time (54%).

CONCLUSION

Peer review is essential for improving the quality of practice in radiation oncology. Despite some discrepancies, numerous obstacles, and challenges in implementation, it is instrumental in the improvement of patient care in most centers throughout the region. Raising awareness among radiation oncologists about the importance of peer review is paramount to lead to better outcomes.

A Visualization and Radiation Treatment Plan Quality Scoring Method for Triage in a Population-Based Context

Purpose

Our purpose was to develop a clinically intuitive and easily understandable scoring method using statistical metrics to visually determine the quality of a radiation treatment plan.

Methods and Materials

Data from 111 patients with head and neck cancer were used to establish a percentile-based scoring system for treatment plan quality evaluation on both a plan-by-plan and objective-by-objective basis. The percentile scores for each clinical objective and the overall treatment plan score were then visualized using a daisy plot. To validate our scoring method, 6 physicians were recruited to assess 60 plans, each using a scoring table consisting of a 5-point Likert scale (with scores ≥3 considered passing). Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to assess the association between increasing treatment plan percentile rank and physician rating, with Likert scores of 1 and 2 representing clinically unacceptable plans, scores of 3 and 4 representing plans needing minor edits, and a score of 5 representing clinically acceptable plans. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the scoring system's ability to quantify plan quality.

Results

Of the 60 plans scored by the physicians, 8 were deemed as clinically acceptable; these plans had an 89.0th ± 14.5 percentile value using our scoring system. The plans needing minor edits or deemed unacceptable had more variation, with scores falling in the 62.6nd ± 25.1 percentile and 35.6th ± 25.7 percentile, respectively. The estimated Spearman correlation coefficient between the physician score and treatment plan percentile was 0.53 (P < .001), indicating a moderate but statistically significant correlation. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated discernment between acceptable and unacceptable plan quality, with an area under the curve of 0.76.

Conclusions

Our scoring system correlates with physician ratings while providing intuitive visual feedback for identifying good treatment plan quality, thereby indicating its utility in the quality assurance process.

Pilot study of radiation oncology peer review in low middle income country (LMIC) through cloud-based platform

PURPOSE

Peer review is an essential step in clinical quality assurance for radiation therapy. There are very little data on peer reviews from low-middle-income countries (LMIC). With increasing access to advanced technologies in LMIC also, peer review is becoming more important to ensure quality and standard of care. We evaluated cloud-based e-Peer review in our network of cancer centers in India with an aim to study its feasibility and impact on care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four out of 13 cancer centers across India were selected for this pilot study. All team members were trained on the e-Peer review platform before the initiation of the study. A lead dosimetrist from a centralized planning site was selected to share new cases every week. Cases treated with only definitive intent were selected. The link to the cases was sent through an email to reviewing physicians. The following aspects were reviewed for each case. 1) Work up and staging. 2) Treatment intent and prescription. 3) Target contours. 4) Normal organ at risk contours. 5) Dose-volume-histogram (DVH) with clinical goals attached. Cases were marked as "Not Appropriate," "Appropriate," "Appropriate with minor finding," and "Represent with major revisions" as per volume and plan review.

RESULTS

Over a period of 3 months, 100 cases underwent peer review before the start of treatment. Median turnover time was 48 (interquartile range: 24-96) hours. The median time for review was 8 min with time to review cases requiring major and minor changes being 12 and 6 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Of all the cases reviewed, no changes, minor changes, and major changes were suggested for 36%, 48%, and 16% of cases, respectively. The most frequent reason for major changes was contouring corrections (15%). Also, 31.3% of major changes underwent recontouring and replanning before initiation of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Peer review was feasible in our setting through this cloud-based peer review system, with median turnover time and time taken for review being 48 h and 8 min, respectively. Like published data from the Western world, peer review led to changes that could impact patient care delivery and outcome. We plan to implement this across the remaining centers in our network.

Clinical effects of re-evaluating a lung SBRT failure mode and effects analysis in a radiotherapy department

PURPOSE

The increasing complexity of radiation treatments can hinder its clinical success. This study aimed to better understand evolving risks by re-evaluating a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in lung SBRT.

METHODS

An experienced multidisciplinary team conducted an FMEA and made a reassessment 3 years later. A process map was developed with potential failure modes (FMs) identified. High-risk FMs and their possible causes and corrective actions were determined. The initial FMEA analysis was compared to gain a deeper perspective.

RESULTS

We identified 232 FMs. The high-risk processes were plan approval, target contouring, and patient evaluation. The corrective measures were based on stricter standardization of plan approval, pre-planning peer review, and a supporting pretreatment checklist, which substantially reduced the risk priority number in the revised FMEA. In the FMEA reassessment, we observed that the increased complexity and number of patients receiving lung SBRT conditioned a more substantial presence of human factors and communication errors as causal conditions and a potential wrong dose as a final effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting a lung SBRT FMEA analysis has identified high-risk conditions that have been effectively mitigated in an FMEA reanalysis. Plan approval has shown to be a weak link in the process. The increasing complexity of treatments and patient numbers have shifted causal factors toward human failure and communication errors. The potential of a wrong dose as a final effect augments in this scenario. We propose that digital and artificial intelligence options are needed to mitigate potential errors in high-complexity and high-risk RT scenarios.

Systematic Implementation of Effective Quality Assurance Processes for the Assessment of Radiation Target Volumes in Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Significant heterogeneity exists in clinical quality assurance (QA) practices within radiation oncology departments, with most chart rounds lacking prospective peer-reviewed contour evaluation. This has the potential to significantly affect patient outcomes, particularly for head and neck cancers (HNC) given the large variance in target volume delineation. With this understanding, we incorporated a prospective systematic peer contour-review process into our workflow for all patients with HNC. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of implementing prospective peer review into practice for our National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center and to report factors associated with contour modifications.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Starting in November 2020, our department adopted a systematic QA process with real-time metrics, in which contours for all patients with HNC treated with radiation therapy were prospectively peer reviewed and graded. Contours were graded with green (unnecessary), yellow (minor), or red (major) colors based on the degree of peer-recommended modifications. Contours from November 2020 through September 2021 were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty contours were included. Contour grades were made up of 89.7% green, 8.9% yellow, and 1.4% red grades. Physicians with >12 months of clinical experience were less likely to have contour changes requested than those with <12 months (8.3% vs 40.9%; P < .001). Contour grades were significantly associated with physician case load, with physicians presenting more than the median number of 50 cases having significantly less modifications requested than those presenting <50 (6.7% vs 13.3%; P = .013). Physicians working with a resident or fellow were less likely to have contour changes requested than those without a trainee (5.2% vs 12.6%; P = .039). Frequency of major modification requests significantly decreased over time after adoption of prospective peer contour review, with no red grades occurring >6 months after adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of prospective peer contour-review implementation into systematic clinical QA processes for HNC. Physician experience proved to be the highest predictor of approved contours. A growth curve was demonstrated, with major modifications declining after prospective contour review implementation. Even within a high-volume academic practice with subspecialist attendings, >10% of patients had contour changes made as a direct result of prospective peer review.

Latin American Consensus on the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is well known as a serious health problem worldwide, especially in low-income countries or those with limited resources, such as most countries in Latin America. International guidelines cannot always be applied to a population from a large region with specific conditions. This study established a Latin American guideline for care of patients with head and neck cancer and presented evidence of HNSCC management considering availability and oncologic benefit. A panel composed of 41 head and neck cancer experts systematically worked according to a modified Delphi process on (1) document compilation of evidence-based answers to different questions contextualized by resource availability and oncologic benefit regarding Latin America (region of limited resources and/or without access to all necessary health care system infrastructure), (2) revision of the answers and the classification of levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations of all recommendations, (3) validation of the consensus through two rounds of online surveys, and (4) manuscript composition. The consensus consists of 12 sections: Head and neck cancer staging, Histopathologic evaluation of head and neck cancer, Head and neck surgery-oral cavity, Clinical oncology-oral cavity, Head and neck surgery-oropharynx, Clinical oncology-oropharynx, Head and neck surgery-larynx, Head and neck surgery-larynx/hypopharynx, Clinical oncology-larynx/hypopharynx, Clinical oncology-recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer, Head and neck surgery-reconstruction and rehabilitation, and Radiation therapy. The present consensus established 48 recommendations on HNSCC patient care considering the availability of resources and focusing on oncologic benefit. These recommendations could also be used to formulate strategies in other regions like Latin America countries.

Enhancing quality assurance in radiotherapy for gynaecological cancers: implementation of an on-demand peer review process

OBJECTIVES

Ensuring high-quality radiotherapy requires peer-reviewing target volumes. The Royal College of Radiologists recommends peer review specifically for individual target volumes in cases of gynaecological cancers. This study presents the outcomes of implementing an on-demand peer review system for gynaecological cancers within our institute.

METHODS

The peer review process was planned for gynaecological cancer cases intended for curative radiotherapy. After junior clinical oncologists (COs) completed the segmentation, two senior COs specializing in gynaecological cancers conducted the peer review. All peer review outcomes were recorded prospectively. The audit process compliance, the proportion of patients requiring major and minor modifications in target volumes, the direction of changes, and the factors influencing these changes were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients were eligible, and out of these, 204 (88.3%) patients underwent at least one peer review. Among the patients, 108 required major modifications in their target volumes. P-charts revealed a stabilization in the need for major modifications at the end of three months, indicating that 38.2% and 28% of patients still required major modifications for the nodal and primary CTV, respectively. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that major modifications were associated with the use of extended field radiotherapy and radical radiation in non-cervical primary cases.

CONCLUSIONS

An on-demand peer review system was feasible and resulted in clinically meaningful, major modifications in the target volumes for 53% of patients.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Gynaecological cancers require ongoing peer review to ensure quality of care in radiotherapy. A flexible on-demand system not only ensures that patient treatment start is not delayed but also has an important educational role for junior trainees.

ARCHERY: a prospective observational study of artificial intelligence-based radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck and prostate cancer - study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy.

METHODS

ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.

A Decade of Prospective Peer Review: Impact on Safety Culture and Lessons Learned in a Multicenter Radiation Medicine Department

PURPOSE

Quality assurance (QA) is critical to the success of radiation therapy (RT) for patients with cancer and affects clinical outcomes. We report longitudinal findings of a prospective peer review evaluation system implemented at a major academic health system as part of RT QA during a 10-year period.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All cases treated within our department undergo prospective multidisciplinary peer review and are assigned a grade (A, B, or C). "A" cases require no changes, "B" cases require minor modification, and "C" cases require major modification before treatment planning. The z-ratio test for the significance of the difference between the 5-year baseline (2012-2016) and follow-up (2017-2021) period was used to compare grades between the 2 periods. A 2-tailed P value <.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of the 20,069 cases, 15,659 (78%) were curative and were analyzed. The fraction of A cases decreased from 74.8% (baseline) to 64.5% (follow-up), whereas B cases increased from 19.4% to 35.4% and C cases decreased from 5.8% to 0.1%. Of the 9 treatment locations, the main hospital site had a higher percentage of A grades relative to community locations in the baseline (78.6% vs 67.8%; P < .002) and follow-up (66.9% vs 62.3%; P < .002) periods. There was a decrease in the percentage of A cases from the baseline to the follow-up period regardless of plan type (complex vs intermediate vs simple). There was a decrease in the percentage of A cases among specialists from baseline to follow-up (78.2% to 67.7%; P < .002) and among generalists from baseline to follow-up (69.7% to 61.7%; P < .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our 10-year experience in contour peer review identified increased opportunities in improving treatment plan quality over time. The drop in A scores and rise in B scores suggests increased scrutiny and findings-based improvements over time, whereas the drop in C scores indicates amelioration of "major failures" addressed in the startup years. Peer review rounds upstream of treatment planning provide valuable RT QA and should be considered by other departments to enhance the quality and consistency of RT.

Attitudes and access to resources and strategies to improve quality of radiotherapy among US radiation oncologists: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess contouring-related practices among US radiation oncologists and explore how access to and use of resources and quality improvement strategies vary based on individual- and organization-level factors.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design. Surveys were emailed to a random 10% sample of practicing US radiation oncologists. Participating physicians were invited to a semi-structured interview. Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and a multivariable regression model were used to evaluate associations. Interview data were coded using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Survey overall response rate was 24%, and subsequent completion rate was 97%. Contouring-related questions arise in ≥50% of clinical cases among 73% of respondents. Resources accessed first include published atlases (75%) followed by consulting another radiation oncologist (60%). Generalists access consensus guidelines more often than disease-site specialists (P = 0.04), while eContour.org is more often used by generalists (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.2-14.8) and younger physicians (OR 1.33 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). Common physician-reported barriers to optimizing contour quality are time constraints (58%) and lack of access to disease-site specialists (21%). Forty percent (40%, n = 14) of physicians without access to disease-site specialists indicated it could facilitate the adoption of new treatments. Almost all (97%) respondents have formal peer review, but only 43% have contour-specific review, which is more common in academic centres (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Potential opportunities to improve radiation contour quality include improved access to disease-site specialists and contour-specific peer review. Physician time must be considered when designing new strategies.

QUARTET: A SIOP Europe project for quality and excellence in radiotherapy and imaging for children and adolescents with cancer

The European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) Radiation Oncology Working Group presents the QUARTET Project: a centralised quality assurance programme designed to standardise care and improve the quality of radiotherapy and imaging for international clinical trials recruiting children and adolescents with cancer throughout Europe. QUARTET combines the paediatric radiation oncology expertise of SIOPE with the infrastructure and experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer to deliver radiotherapy quality assurance programmes for large, prospective, international clinical trials. QUARTET-affiliated trials include children and adolescents with brain tumours, neuroblastoma, sarcomas including rhabdomyosarcoma, and renal tumours including Wilms' tumour. With nine prospective clinical trials and two retrospective studies within the active portfolio in March 2022, QUARTET will collect one of the largest repositories of paediatric radiotherapy and imaging data, support the clinical assessment of radiotherapy, and evaluate the role and benefit of radiotherapy quality assurance for this cohort of patients within the context of clinical trials.

Recent Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Radiotherapy: Where We Are and Beyond

In recent decades, artificial intelligence (AI) tools have been applied in many medical fields, opening the possibility of finding novel solutions for managing very complex and multifactorial problems, such as those commonly encountered in radiotherapy (RT). We conducted a PubMed and Scopus search to identify the AI application field in RT limited to the last four years. In total, 1824 original papers were identified, and 921 were analyzed by considering the phase of the RT workflow according to the applied AI approaches. AI permits the processing of large quantities of information, data, and images stored in RT oncology information systems, a process that is not manageable for individuals or groups. AI allows the iterative application of complex tasks in large datasets (e.g., delineating normal tissues or finding optimal planning solutions) and might support the entire community working in the various sectors of RT, as summarized in this overview. AI-based tools are now on the roadmap for RT and have been applied to the entire workflow, mainly for segmentation, the generation of synthetic images, and outcome prediction. Several concerns were raised, including the need for harmonization while overcoming ethical, legal, and skill barriers.

Radiation oncology peer review in Australia and New Zealand

Peer review is a part of high quality care within radiation oncology, designed to achieve the best outcomes for patients. We discuss the importance of and evidence for peer review in clinical practice. The Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) has evolved a Peer Review Assessment Tool (PRAT) since 1999. We report the results of a RANZCR faculty survey conducted in radiation oncology facilities across Australia and New Zealand to guide the 2019 PRAT revision process, and discuss the development and implementation of the 2019 PRAT. Peer-review processes are now mandated as a component of Australian and International Quality Standards. Several practical recommendations might address challenges for effective implementation of peer review process in routine clinical practice. This includes prioritising tumour sites and treatment techniques for peer review within the time and resources constraints of each institution, improving resource allocation, ensuring optimal timing and duration for peer review meetings, and adopting multi-centre virtual peer review meeting where necessary.

Peer Review of Head and Neck Cancer Planning Target Volumes in Radiation Oncology

Purpose

Radiation treatment plans undergo peer review during chart rounds, but changes to treatment volumes would require replanning. Our group implemented weekly head and neck cancer “volume rounds” to peer review all target volumes for head and neck cancer before radiation therapy (RT) planning and chart rounds.

Methods and Materials

We analyzed modifications made to planning target volumes (PTVs) at volume rounds for consecutive nonproton head and neck cancer cases from May 2020 to May 2021. Nine head and neck radiation oncologists participated in weekly volume rounds during this time. Recommendations were categorized as no changes, minor changes, major changes, additional workup (eg, biopsy or imaging), and consultation or tumor board discussion needed before the start of RT. Minor changes to PTVs generally did not require a second review before treatment planning while major changes did.

Results

PTVs for 511 cases involving 432 patients underwent peer review and 298 (58.3%) of these cases did not require any modifications before treatment planning. Minor and major changes were recommended in 75 (14.7%) and 86 (16.8%) cases, respectively. Forty-five (8.8%) cases were recommended to have additional workup and 23 (4.5%) required additional consultation with nonradiation surgeons or medical oncologists. Of the 45 cases that were recommended for additional workup, 40 underwent biopsy or imaging. Positive findings on imaging or biopsy occurred in 13 patients, leading to a significant change in management, including 4 patients who underwent additional surgery after positive findings before the start of RT.

Conclusions

Prospective peer review during head and neck cancer volume rounds led to frequent minor and major alterations to PTVs. Significant changes in the overall treatment plan, such as additional surgery before start of RT, occurred in a minority of patients.

The quantitative impact of joint peer review with a specialist radiologist in head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning

OBJECTIVES

Radiologist input in peer review of head and neck radiotherapy has been introduced as a routine departmental approach. The aim was to evaluate this practice and to quantitatively analyse the changes made.

METHODS

Patients treated with radical-dose radiotherapy between August and November 2020 were reviewed. The incidence of major and minor changes, as defined by The Royal College of Radiologists guidance, was prospectively recorded. The amended radiotherapy volumes were compared with the original volumes using Jaccard Index (JI) to assess conformity; Geographical Miss Index (GMI) for undercontouring; and Hausdorff Distance (HD) between the volumes.

RESULTS

In total, 73 out of 87 (84%) patients were discussed. Changes were recommended in 38 (52%) patients: 30 had ≥1 major change, eight had minor changes only. There were 99 amended volumes: The overall median JI, GMI and HD was 0.91 (interquartile range [IQR]=0.80-0.97), 0.06 (IQR = 0.02-0.18) and 0.42 cm (IQR = 0.20-1.17 cm), respectively. The nodal gross-tumour-volume (GTVn) and therapeutic high-dose nodal clinical-target-volume (CTVn) had the biggest magnitude of changes: The median JI, GMI and HD of GTVn was 0.89 (IQR = 0.44-0.95), 0.11 (IQR = 0.05-0.51), 3.71 cm (IQR = 0.31-6.93 cm); high-dose CTVn was 0.78 (IQR = 0.59-0.90), 0.20 (IQR = 0.07-0.31) and 3.28 cm (IQR = 1.22-6.18 cm), respectively. There was no observed difference in the quantitative indices of the 85 'major' and 14 'minor' volumes (p = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine head and neck radiologist input in radiotherapy peer review is feasible and can help avoid gross error in contouring.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The major and minor classifications may benefit from differentiation with quantitative indices but requires correlation from clinical outcomes.

ProCaLung - Peer review in stage III, mediastinal node-positive, non-small-cell lung cancer: How to benchmark clinical practice of nodal target volume definition and delineation in Belgium☆

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Quality Assurance project for stage III non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy ProCaLung performed a multicentric two-step exercise evaluating mediastinal nodal Target Volume Definition and Delineation (TVD) variability and the opportunity for standardization. The TVD variability before and after providing detailed guidelines and the value of qualitative contour reviewing before applying quantitative measures were investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The case of a patient with stage III NSCLC and involved mediastinal lymph nodes was used as a basis for this study. Twenty-two radiation oncologists from nineteen centers in Belgium and Luxembourg participated in at least one of two phases of the project (before and after introduction of ProCaLung contouring guidelines). The resulting thirty-three mediastinal nodal GTV and CTV contours were then evaluated using a qualitative-before-quantitative (QBQ) approach. First, a qualitative analysis was performed, evaluating adherence to most recent guidelines. From this, a list of observed deviations was created and these were used to evaluate contour conformity. The second analysis was quantitative, using overlap and surface distance measures to compare contours within qualitative groups and between phases. A 'most robust' reference volume for these analyses was created using the STAPLE-algorithm and an averaging method.

RESULTS

Five GTV and seven CTV qualitative groups were identified. Second step contours were more often in higher-conformity groups (p = 0.012 for GTV and p = 0.024 for CTV). Median Residual Mean Square Distances improved from 2.34 mm to 1.36 mm for GTV (p = 0.01) and from 4.53 mm to 1.58 mm for CTV (p < 0.0001). Median Dice coefficients increased from 0.81 to 0.84 for GTV (p = 0.07) and from 0.82 to 0.89 for CTV (p ≤ 0.001). Using HC-contours only to generate references translated in more robust quantitative evaluations.

CONCLUSION

Variability of mediastinal nodal TVD was reduced after providing the ProCaLung consensus guidelines. A qualitative review was essential for providing meaningful quantitative measures.

The impact of radiation therapist-led structured peer review meetings on compliance to Radiation Oncology Practice Standards

INTRODUCTION

Regular tumour-specific peer review meetings (TPRMs) were established by our group during 2016. A dedicated Quality Assurance Radiation Therapist (QART) was employed in 2018 to co-ordinate the meetings and for each patient, complete the Peer Review Audit Tool (PRAT) of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). The aim of the current quality assurance study was to investigate the impact of the TPRMs and appointment of the QART on compliance to relevant RANZCR Radiation Oncology Practice Standards (ROPS).

METHODS

Tumour-specific peer review meetings for eight tumour sites were assessed across our group's three hospitals from January 2017 to December 2019. Data from meetings were collected using the PRAT or from paper-based minutes and assessed against four ROPS (ROPS 3, 4, 8 and 9). Compliance with each of the four standards was measured by presence of the required documentation and presentation at TPRM, as recorded by the PRAT.

RESULTS

There was an increase in the overall number of peer review cases audited from 173 in the 2017 calendar year to 469 in 2018 and 619 in 2019, representing 7%, 18% and 22% of all treatment courses started during these years, respectively. Staging was the most incompletely documented item across all years for audited patients. The request for radiation treatment plan modifications increased year-on-year: modifications were requested for 5% of plans in 2017 (8/172), 18% in 2018 (81/452) and 19% (119/619) in 2019.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that an increase in the number of cases for peer-review audit corresponded to the QART-facilitated TPRMs. Application of the PRAT has identified radiation treatment plan modifications that would otherwise go undetected and without opportunity to improve the quality of patients' treatment or avoid harm.