OBJECTIVE: The complexity of radiotherapy planning is increasing rapidly. Delivery and planning is subject to detailed quality assurance (QA) checks. The weakest link is often the oncologists' delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV). Weekly departmental meetings for radiotherapy QA (RTQA) were introduced into the Royal Wolverhampton Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK, in October 2011. This article describes the impact of this on patient care. METHODS: CTVs for megavoltage photon radiotherapy courses for all radical, adjuvant and palliative treatments longer than five fractions (with the exception of two field tangential breast treatments not enrolled into clinical trials) were reviewed in the RTQA meeting. Audits were carried out in January 2012 (baseline) and September 2013, each over a 4-week period. Adherence to departmental contouring protocols was assessed and the number of major and minor alterations following peer review were determined. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference for major alterations between the two study groups; 8 alterations in 80 patients (10%) for the baseline audit vs 3 alterations from 72 patients (4.2%) in the second audit (p = 0.17). A trend towards a reduction in alterations following peer review was observed. There has, however, been a change in practice resulting in a reduction in variation in CTV definition within our centre and greater adherence to protocols. There is increasing confidence in the quality and constancy of care delivered. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a weekly QA meeting for target volume definition has facilitated consensus and adoption of departmental clinical guidelines within the unit. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The weakest areas in radiotherapy are patient selection and definition of the CTV. Engagement in high-quality RTQA is paramount. This article describes the impact of this in one UK cancer centre.
OBJECTIVE: The complexity of radiotherapy planning is increasing rapidly. Delivery and planning is subject to detailed quality assurance (QA) checks. The weakest link is often the oncologists' delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV). Weekly departmental meetings for radiotherapy QA (RTQA) were introduced into the Royal Wolverhampton Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK, in October 2011. This article describes the impact of this on patient care. METHODS: CTVs for megavoltage photon radiotherapy courses for all radical, adjuvant and palliative treatments longer than five fractions (with the exception of two field tangential breast treatments not enrolled into clinical trials) were reviewed in the RTQA meeting. Audits were carried out in January 2012 (baseline) and September 2013, each over a 4-week period. Adherence to departmental contouring protocols was assessed and the number of major and minor alterations following peer review were determined. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference for major alterations between the two study groups; 8 alterations in 80 patients (10%) for the baseline audit vs 3 alterations from 72 patients (4.2%) in the second audit (p = 0.17). A trend towards a reduction in alterations following peer review was observed. There has, however, been a change in practice resulting in a reduction in variation in CTV definition within our centre and greater adherence to protocols. There is increasing confidence in the quality and constancy of care delivered. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a weekly QA meeting for target volume definition has facilitated consensus and adoption of departmental clinical guidelines within the unit. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The weakest areas in radiotherapy are patient selection and definition of the CTV. Engagement in high-quality RTQA is paramount. This article describes the impact of this in one UK cancer centre.
Authors: Elisabeth Weiss; Susanne Richter; Thomas Krauss; Silke I Metzelthin; Andrea Hille; Olivier Pradier; Birgit Siekmeyer; Hilke Vorwerk; Clemens F Hess Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Yaacov Richard Lawrence; Michal A Whiton; Zvi Symon; Evan J Wuthrick; Laura Doyle; Amy S Harrison; Adam P Dicker Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Xinglei Shen; Adam P Dicker; Laura A Doyle; Amy S Harrison; Timothy N Showalter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bhishamjit S Chera; Marianne Jackson; Lukasz M Mazur; Robert Adams; Sha Chang; Kathy Deschesne; Timothy Cullip; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: M D Brundage; P F Dixon; W J Mackillop; W E Shelley; C R Hayter; L F Paszat; Y M Youssef; J M Robins; A McNamee; A Cornell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Boxer; D Forstner; A Kneebone; G Delaney; E-S Koh; M Fuller; N Kaadan Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Matthew T Ballo; Gregory M Chronowski; Pamela J Schlembach; Elizabeth S Bloom; Isadora Y Arzu; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-12-18
Authors: Anis Ahmad; Lakshmi Santanam; Abhishek A Solanki; Laura Padilla; Erina Vlashi; Patrizia Guerrieri; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister; Michael C Joiner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 2.243