Evidence-based Peer Review for Radiation Therapy e Updated Review of the Literature with a Focus on Tumour Subsite and Treatment Modality

Huo, M., Gorayski, P., Poulsen, M., Thompson, K. and Pinkham, M. B. (2017) Evidence-based Peer Review for Radiation Therapy e Updated Review of the Literature with a Focus on Tumour Subsite and Treatment Modality. Clinical Oncology, 29 10: 680-688. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2017.04.038


Author Huo, M.
Gorayski, P.
Poulsen, M.
Thompson, K.
Pinkham, M. B.
Title Evidence-based Peer Review for Radiation Therapy e Updated Review of the Literature with a Focus on Tumour Subsite and Treatment Modality
Journal name Clinical Oncology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0936-6555
1433-2981
Publication date 2017-05-18
Year available 2017
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1016/j.clon.2017.04.038
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 29
Issue 10
Start page 680
End page 688
Total pages 9
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
Language eng
Subject 2730 Oncology
2741 Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Abstract Technological advances in radiation therapy permit steep dose gradients from the target to spare normal tissue, but increase the risk of geographic miss. Suboptimal target delineation adversely affects clinical outcomes. Prospective peer review is a method for quality assurance of oncologists' radiotherapy plans. Published surveys suggest it is widely implemented. However, it may not be feasible to review every case before commencement of radiation therapy in all departments. The rate of plan changes following peer review of cases without a specific subsite or modality is typically around 10%. Stereotactic body radiation therapy, head and neck, gynaecological, gastrointestinal, haematological and lung cases are associated with higher rates of change of around 25%. These cases could thus be prioritised for peer review. Other factors may limit peer review efficacy including organisational culture, time constraints and the physical environment in which sessions are held. Recommendations for peer review endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology were made available in 2013, but a number of relevant studies have been published since. Here we review and update the literature, and provide an updated suggestion for the implementation of peer review to serve as an adjunct to published guidelines. This may help practitioners evaluate their current processes and maximise the utility and effectiveness of peer review sessions. (C) 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keyword Quality-Assurance Rounds
Cancer Center
Lung-Cancer
Radiotherapy
Oncology
Impact
Outcomes
Audit
Care
Trials
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sat, 18 Nov 2017, 23:07:10 EST