Matthew T Ballo1, Gregory M Chronowski2, Pamela J Schlembach2, Elizabeth S Bloom2, Isadora Y Arzu2, Deborah A Kuban2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: mballo@westclinic.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We implemented a peer review program that required presentation of all nonpalliative cases to a weekly peer review conference. The purpose of this review is to document compliance and determine how this program impacted care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 2988 patients were eligible for peer review. Patient data were presented to a group of physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists, and the radiation therapy plan was reviewed. Details of changes made were documented within a quality assurance note dictated after discussion. Changes recommended by the peer review process were categorized as changes to radiation dose, target, or major changes. RESULTS: Breast cancer accounted for 47.9% of all cases, followed in frequency by head-and-neck (14.8%), gastrointestinal (9.9%), genitourinary (9.3%), and thoracic (6.7%) malignancies. Of the 2988 eligible patients, 158 (5.3%) were not presented for peer review. The number of missed presentations decreased over time; 2007, 8.2%; 2008, 5.7%; 2009, 3.8%; and 2010, 2.7% (P < .001). The reason for a missed presentation was unknown but varied by disease site and physician. Of the 2830 cases presented for peer review, a change was recommended in 346 cases (12.2%) and categorized as a dose change in 28.3%, a target change in 69.1%, and a major treatment change in 2.6%. When examined by year of treatment the number of changes recommended decreased over time: 2007, 16.5%; 2008, 11.5%; 2009, 12.5%; and 2010, 7.8% (P < .001). The number of changes recommended varied by disease site and physician. The head-and-neck, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal malignancies accounted for the majority of changes made. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with this weekly program was satisfactory and improved over time. The program resulted in decreased treatment plan changes over time reflecting a move toward treatment consensus. We recommend that peer review be considered for patients receiving radiation therapy as it creates a culture where guideline adherence and discussion are part of normal practice.
PURPOSE: We implemented a peer review program that required presentation of all nonpalliative cases to a weekly peer review conference. The purpose of this review is to document compliance and determine how this program impacted care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 2988 patients were eligible for peer review. Patient data were presented to a group of physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists, and the radiation therapy plan was reviewed. Details of changes made were documented within a quality assurance note dictated after discussion. Changes recommended by the peer review process were categorized as changes to radiation dose, target, or major changes. RESULTS:Breast cancer accounted for 47.9% of all cases, followed in frequency by head-and-neck (14.8%), gastrointestinal (9.9%), genitourinary (9.3%), and thoracic (6.7%) malignancies. Of the 2988 eligible patients, 158 (5.3%) were not presented for peer review. The number of missed presentations decreased over time; 2007, 8.2%; 2008, 5.7%; 2009, 3.8%; and 2010, 2.7% (P < .001). The reason for a missed presentation was unknown but varied by disease site and physician. Of the 2830 cases presented for peer review, a change was recommended in 346 cases (12.2%) and categorized as a dose change in 28.3%, a target change in 69.1%, and a major treatment change in 2.6%. When examined by year of treatment the number of changes recommended decreased over time: 2007, 16.5%; 2008, 11.5%; 2009, 12.5%; and 2010, 7.8% (P < .001). The number of changes recommended varied by disease site and physician. The head-and-neck, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal malignancies accounted for the majority of changes made. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with this weekly program was satisfactory and improved over time. The program resulted in decreased treatment plan changes over time reflecting a move toward treatment consensus. We recommend that peer review be considered for patients receiving radiation therapy as it creates a culture where guideline adherence and discussion are part of normal practice.
Authors: Carlos E Cardenas; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Randa Tao; Andrew J R Wong; Mussadiq J Awan; Shirly Kuruvila; Michalis Aristophanous; G Brandon Gunn; Jack Phan; Beth M Beadle; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; William H Morrison; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carlos E Cardenas; Sanne E Blinde; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Sweet Ping Ng; Cornelis Raaijmakers; Marielle Philippens; Alexis Kotte; Abrahim A Al-Mamgani; Irene Karam; David J Thomson; Jared Robbins; Kate Newbold; Clifton D Fuller; Chris Terhaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Murat Surucu; Amishi Bajaj; John C Roeske; Alec M Block; Jennifer Price; William Small; Abhishek A Solanki Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-03-21
Authors: E Martin-Garcia; F Celada-Álvarez; M J Pérez-Calatayud; M Rodriguez-Pla; O Prato-Carreño; D Farga-Albiol; O Pons-Llanas; S Roldán-Ortega; E Collado-Ballesteros; F J Martinez-Arcelus; Y Bernisz-Diaz; V A Macias; J Chimeno; J Gimeno-Olmos; F Lliso; V Carmona; J C Ruiz; J Pérez-Calatayud; A Tormo-Micó; A J Conde-Moreno Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Shearwood McClelland; Flora Amy Achiko; Gregory K Bartlett; Gordon A Watson; Jordan A Holmes; Ryan M Rhome; Colleen M DesRosiers; Karen M Hutchins; Kevin Shiue; Namita Agrawal Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-08-15