• David I Rosenthal, Joshua A Asper, Jerry L Barker, Adam S Garden, ChaoK S CliffordKS, William H Morrison, Randal S Weber, and K Kian Ang.
• Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA. dirosenthal@mdanderson.org
• Head Neck. 2006 Nov 1; 28 (11): 967-73.

BackgroundWhen quality assurance programs in clinical radiation oncology focus mainly on the technical aspects of treatment, they tend to underplay questions of therapeutic process and outcome. We determined the value of clinical peer review in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer that involved head and neck examination.MethodsData were collected prospectively on 134 consecutive patients with preliminary radiation therapy (RT) plans. Peer review was performed that included head and neck examination and imaging review to confirm target localization.ResultsPeer review led to changes in treatment plans for 66% of patients. Most changes were minor, but 11% of changes were major and thought to be of a magnitude that could potentially affect therapeutic outcome or normal tissue toxicity. Most changes involved target delineation based on physical findingsConclusionsPeer review of radiation target localization in RT plans led to changes that could potentially affect rates of cancer control or complication in about 10% of patients. We suggest that the accuracy of head and neck radiation oncology treatment plans might be increased by co-examination by another head and neck cancer specialist, typically a radiation oncologist or head and neck surgeon, to confirm RT target volumes.

17 keywords...

hide…