Impact of Peer Review in the Radiation Treatment Planning Process: Experience of a Tertiary Care University Hospital in Pakistan.

Abstract

PURPOSETo evaluate and report the frequency of changes in radiation therapy treatment plans after peer review in a simulation review meeting once a week.MATERIALS AND METHODSBetween July 1 and August 31, 2016, the radiation plans of 116 patients were discussed in departmental simulation review meetings. All plans were finalized by the primary radiation oncologist before presenting them in the meeting. A team of radiation oncologists reviewed each plan, and their suggestions were documented as no change, major change, minor change, or missing contour. Changes were further classified as changes in clinical target volume, treatment field, or dose. All recommendations were stratified on the basis of treatment intent, site, and technique. Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and are presented descriptively.RESULTSOut of 116 plans, 26 (22.4%) were recommended for changes. Minor changes were suggested in 15 treatment plans (12.9%) and a major change in 10 (8.6%), and only one plan was suggested for missing contour. The frequency of change recommendations was greater in radical radiation plans than in palliative plans (92.3% v 7.7%). The head and neck was the most common treatment site recommended for any changes (42.3%). Most of the changes were recommended in the technique planned with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (50%). Clinical target volume (73.1%) was identified as the most frequent parameter suggested for any change, followed by treatment field (19.2%) and dose (0.08%).CONCLUSIONPeer review is an important tool that can be used to overcome deficiencies in radiation treatment plans, with a goal of improved and individualized patient care. Our study reports changes in up to a quarter of radiotherapy plans.