• Ashley A Albert, William N Duggar, Rahul P Bhandari, Vengaloor ThomasTomsTDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 350 W. Woodrow Wilson Drive, Suite 1600, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA., Satyaseelan Packianathan, Robert M Allbright, Madhava R Kanakamedala, Divyang Mehta, Chunli Claus Yang, and Srinivasan Vijayakumar.
• Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 350 W. Woodrow Wilson Drive, Suite 1600, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA. aalbert@umc.edu.
• Radiat Oncol. 2018 Dec 3; 13 (1): 239.

BackgroundPeer review systems within radiation oncology are important to ensure quality radiation care. Several individualized methods for radiation oncology peer review have been described. However, despite the importance of peer review in radiation oncology barriers may exist to its effective implementation in practice. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of plan changes based on our group peer review process as well as the quantify amount of time and resources needed for this process.MethodsData on cases presented in our institutional group consensus peer review conference were prospectively collected. Cases were then retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of major change (plan rejection) and any change in plans after presentation as well as the median time of presentation. Univariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with major change and any change.ResultsThere were 73 cases reviewed over a period of 11 weeks. The rate of major change was 8.2% and the rate of any change was 23.3%. The majority of plans (53.4%) were presented in 6-10 min. Overall, the mean time of presentation was 8 min. On univariable logistic regression, volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were less likely to undergo a plan change but otherwise there were no factors significantly associated with major plan change or any type of change.ConclusionGroup consensus peer review allows for a large amount of informative clinical and technical data to be presented per case prior to the initiation of radiation treatment in a thorough yet efficient manner to ensure plan quality and patient safety.

24 keywords...

hide…