Abstract
Peer review in radiotherapy is an essential step in clinical quality assurance to avoid planning-related errors that can impact on patient safety and treatment outcomes. Despite recommendations that radiotherapy centres should include peer review in their regular quality assurance pathway, adoption of the practice has not been universal, and to date there have been no formal guidelines set out to standardise the process. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to determine existing practice in radiotherapy peer review internationally, with respect to meeting structure and processes, in order to define a standardised framework. A PubMed and Web of Science search identified 17 articles detailing peer review practice. The results revealed significant variation in peer review processes between institutions, and a lack of consensus on documentation and reporting. Variations in the grading of outcomes of peer review were also noted. Taking into account the results of this review, a framework for standardising the process and outcome documentation for peer review has been developed. This can be utilised by radiotherapy centres introducing or updating peer review practice, and can facilitate meaningful evaluation of the clinical impact of peer review in the future.
Highlights
The delivery of safe, effective radiotherapy requires rigorous quality assurance at every step of the workflow pathway
Peer review in radiotherapy is defined by The Royal College of Radiologists as ‘a formal review by another expert of the delineated contours used to produce a radiotherapy plan
Our systematic review focused on peer review of Target volume delineation (TVD) and physics plans in the non-trial setting, yet its findings align with those of Cox et al [7], which addressed quality assurance in radiotherapy clinical trials
Summary
The delivery of safe, effective radiotherapy requires rigorous quality assurance at every step of the workflow pathway. Target volume delineation (TVD), a major component of the radiotherapy workflow, is a nuanced and complex task, and interoperator variability is well recognised [2] Reasons for this variability may include differing levels of experience with particular tumour sites, seniority in post, individual stylistic conventions and use of different protocols between centres. This variation can never be completely eradicated e given that each volume delineated requires clinical judgement (e.g. incorporating clinical examination findings into planning volumes for head and neck cancer) e working towards standardisation of approaches to the task is desirable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
