Literature DB >> 25483219

Predictors of breast radiotherapy plan modifications: quality assurance rounds in a large cancer centre.

Timothy Lymberiou1, Susanne Galuszka1, Grace Lee1, Wei Xu2, Anthony Fyles3, Susie Su2, Thomas G Purdie4, Pamela Catton3, Caroline Chung3, Robert Dinniwell3, Anne Koch3, Wilfred Levin3, Lee Manchul3, Padraig Warde3, Fei-Fei Liu5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: This study describes the process and outcomes of breast radiotherapy (RT) quality assurance (QA) rounds, seeking to identify variables associated with plan modifications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Real-time data were prospectively collected over 2 years. Descriptive statistics determined the proportion of cases requiring no (A), minor (B), or major (C) modifications, which were then subjected to univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 2223 breast cancer QA cases were reviewed; 47 cases (2.1%) underwent a minor, and 52 cases (2.3%) required a major modification. Common changes included boost, volume, seroma, and bolus. On univariate analysis, regional nodal irradiation (RNI), tumour size, and axillary node dissection were significantly associated with major modifications. Upon multivariate analysis, the only independent predictor was RNI (OR 2.12, p=0.0075). For patients with no RNI, <2 cm tumours, no axillary lymph node dissection, and no boosts (n=420); the likelihood of category C was only 1.4%.
CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct QA review for all breast cancer cases prior to commencing RT. Patients undergoing RNI had a higher likelihood of plan modifications; a group with low risk of modification was identified, which could direct future re-structuring of QA rounds.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Planning; Quality assurance; Radiotherapy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25483219     DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  4 in total

1.  The Impact of Transitioning to Prospective Contouring and Planning Rounds as Peer Review.

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

2.  100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?

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

3.  The Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapist (CSRT): A case study exploring the effectiveness of a new advanced practice role in Canada.

Authors:  Nicole Harnett; Kate Bak; Elizabeth Lockhart; Michelle Ang; Laura Zychla; Eric Gutierrez; Padraig Warde
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2018-06

4.  Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: Peer review in radiation oncology is more effective today than 20 years ago.

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.