Quality Assurance Peer Review for Radiotherapy for Haematological Malignancies

被引:5
作者
Samuel, R. [1 ]
Thomas, E. [1 ]
Gilson, D. [1 ]
Prestwich, R. J. D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Leeds Canc Ctr, Dept Clin Oncol, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
关键词
Lymphoma; peer review; plasmacytoma; quality assurance; radiotherapy; MODERN RADIATION-THERAPY; HODGKIN LYMPHOMA; DOSE GUIDELINES; PET-CT; HEAD; OUTCOMES; ROUNDS; IMPACT; DEFINITION; EXPANSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.clon.2019.06.010
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Aims: To assess the impact of weekly scheduled peer review of radiotherapy planning contours for definitive treatment of haematological malignancies based on rates of recommended changes. Materials and methods: Analysis of a prospective database of contour-based peer review at weekly scheduled meetings for patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy for haematological malignancies at a single large cancer centre between January and December 2018. Recommended changes were prospectively classified as involving the gross tumour volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk or dose fractionation. A univariate analysis was carried out to explore the associations between recommended changes and disease, treatment characteristics and consultant experience. Results: In total, 158/171 (92%) of all cases of haematological malignancy undergoing definitive radiotherapy were prospectively peer reviewed over a 12-month period. Overall, 26/158 (16.5%) changes were recommended within the peer review meetings. This included a total of 27 contour changes (GTV, CTV or PTV) in 25 patients. An increase in CTV was the most common change, occurring in 20/158 (12.7%) cases. One dose-fractionation change was recommended. Additional advice regarding planning technique/set-up was documented in 5/158 (3.2%) patients. There were no significant associations between rates of recommended change and disease type, stage, prior chemotherapy, first line versus refractory/relapse, anatomical site, radiotherapy technique or consultant experience. Conclusions: Weekly contour-based peer review meetings resulted in a high rate of recommended changes. Compliance was high. Peer review was potentially beneficial for all disease and treatment characteristics and for any degree of clinician experience. (C) 2019 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:E1 / E8
页数:8
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   Outcomes of Routine Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in a Large Head and Neck Cancer Center [J].
Amarasena, Isuru ;
Herschtal, Alan ;
D'Costa, Ieta ;
Fua, Tsien ;
Tiong, Albert ;
Geddes, Vaughan ;
Tran, Phillip ;
Liu, Chen ;
Corry, June .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 98 (03) :541-546
[2]   Prospective peer review quality assurance for outpatient radiation therapy [J].
Ballo, Matthew T. ;
Chronowski, Gregory M. ;
Schlembach, Pamela J. ;
Bloom, Elizabeth S. ;
Arzu, Isadora Y. ;
Kuban, Deborah A. .
PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2014, 4 (05) :279-284
[3]   Evaluation of clinical target volume expansion required for involved site neck radiotherapy for lymphoma to account for the absence of a pre-chemotherapy PET-CT in the radiotherapy treatment position [J].
Bird, David ;
Patel, Chirag ;
Scarsbrook, Andrew F. ;
Cosgrove, Viv ;
Thomas, Emma ;
Gilson, Di ;
Prestwich, Robin J. D. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2017, 124 (01) :161-167
[4]   Importance of Radiation Oncologist Experience Among Patients With Head-and-Neck Cancer Treated With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy [J].
Boero, Isabel J. ;
Paravati, Anthony J. ;
Xu, Beibei ;
Cohen, Ezra E. W. ;
Mell, Loren K. ;
Quynh-Thu Le ;
Murphy, James D. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 34 (07) :684-+
[5]   Impact of the introduction of weekly radiotherapy quality assurance meetings at one UK cancer centre [J].
Brammer, C. V. ;
Pettit, L. ;
Allerton, R. ;
Churn, M. ;
Joseph, M. ;
Koh, P. ;
Sayers, I. ;
King, M. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2014, 87 (1043)
[6]   A real-time audit of radiation therapy in a Regional Cancer Center [J].
Brundage, MD ;
Dixon, PF ;
Mackillop, WJ ;
Shelley, WE ;
Hayter, CRR ;
Paszat, LF ;
Youssef, YM ;
Robins, JM ;
McNamee, A ;
Cornell, A .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1999, 43 (01) :115-124
[7]   Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature [J].
Brunskill, Kelsey ;
Nguyen, Timothy K. ;
Boldt, R. Gabriel ;
Louie, Alexander V. ;
Warner, Andrew ;
Marks, Lawrence B. ;
Palma, David A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 97 (01) :27-34
[8]   Head and Neck Contouring Peer Review [J].
Cole, N. ;
Hwang, D. ;
Jankowska, P. ;
Hamilton, C. .
CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 30 (06) :393-393
[9]   Prospective contouring rounds: A novel, high-impact tool for optimizing quality assurance [J].
Cox, Brett W. ;
Kapur, Ajay ;
Sharma, Anurag ;
Lee, Lucille ;
Bloom, Beatrice ;
Sharma, Rajiv ;
Goode, Gina ;
Potters, Louis .
PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2015, 5 (05) :E431-E436
[10]   Does Quality of Radiation Therapy Predict Outcomes of Multicenter Cooperative Group Trials? A Literature Review [J].
Fairchild, Alysa ;
Straube, William ;
Laurie, Fran ;
Followill, David .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2013, 87 (02) :246-260