• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Jul 2017

    Observational Study

    Prospective Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Real-Time Peer Review Quality Assurance Rounds Incorporating Direct Physical Examination for Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Therapy.

    • Carlos E Cardenas, Abdallah S R Mohamed, Randa Tao, Andrew J R Wong, Mussadiq J Awan, Shirly Kuruvila, Michalis Aristophanous, G Brandon Gunn, Jack Phan, Beth M Beadle, Steven J Frank, Adam S Garden, William H Morrison, Clifton D Fuller, and David I Rosenthal.
    • Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
    • Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017 Jul 1; 98 (3): 532-540.

    PurposeOur department has a long-established comprehensive quality assurance (QA) planning clinic for patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. Our aim is to assess the impact of a real-time peer review QA process on the quantitative and qualitative radiation therapy plan changes in the era of intensity modulated RT (IMRT).Methods And MaterialsProspective data for 85 patients undergoing head and neck IMRT who presented at a biweekly QA clinic after simulation and contouring were collected. A standard data collection form was used to document alterations made during this process. The original pre-QA clinical target volumes (CTVs) approved by the treating-attending physicians were saved before QA and compared with post-QA consensus CTVs. Qualitative assessment was done according to predefined criteria. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) and other volume overlap metrics were calculated for each CTV level and were used for quantitative comparison. Changes are categorized as major, minor, and trivial according to the degree of overlap. Patterns of failure were analyzed and correlated to plan changes.ResultsAll 85 patients were examined by at least 1 head and neck subspecialist radiation oncologist who was not the treating-attending physician; 80 (94%) were examined by ≥3 faculty members. New clinical findings on physical examination were found in 12 patients (14%) leading to major plan changes. Quantitative DSC analysis revealed significantly better agreement in CTV1 (0.94 ± 0.10) contours than in CTV2 (0.82 ± 0.25) and CTV3 (0.86 ± 0.2) contours (P=.0002 and P=.03, respectively; matched-pair Wilcoxon test). The experience of the treating-attending radiation oncologist significantly affected DSC values when all CTV levels were considered (P=.012; matched-pair Wilcoxon text). After a median follow-up time of 38 months, only 10 patients (12%) had local recurrence, regional recurrence, or both, mostly in central high-dose areas.ConclusionsComprehensive peer review planning clinic is an essential component of IMRT QA that led to major changes in one-third of the study population. This process ensured safety related to target definition and led to favorable disease control profiles, with no identifiable recurrences attributable to geometric misses or delineation errors.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…