Carlos E Cardenas1, Abdallah S R Mohamed2, Randa Tao3, Andrew J R Wong3, Mussadiq J Awan3, Shirly Kuruvila3, Michalis Aristophanous1, G Brandon Gunn3, Jack Phan3, Beth M Beadle3, Steven J Frank3, Adam S Garden3, William H Morrison3, Clifton D Fuller4, David I Rosenthal5. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: cdfuller@mdanderson.org. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: dirosenthal@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our department has a long-established comprehensive quality assurance (QA) planning clinic for patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. Our aim is to assess the impact of a real-time peer review QA process on the quantitative and qualitative radiation therapy plan changes in the era of intensity modulated RT (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Prospective data for 85 patients undergoing head and neck IMRT who presented at a biweekly QA clinic after simulation and contouring were collected. A standard data collection form was used to document alterations made during this process. The original pre-QA clinical target volumes (CTVs) approved by the treating-attending physicians were saved before QA and compared with post-QA consensus CTVs. Qualitative assessment was done according to predefined criteria. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) and other volume overlap metrics were calculated for each CTV level and were used for quantitative comparison. Changes are categorized as major, minor, and trivial according to the degree of overlap. Patterns of failure were analyzed and correlated to plan changes. RESULTS: All 85 patients were examined by at least 1 head and neck subspecialist radiation oncologist who was not the treating-attending physician; 80 (94%) were examined by ≥3 faculty members. New clinical findings on physical examination were found in 12 patients (14%) leading to major plan changes. Quantitative DSC analysis revealed significantly better agreement in CTV1 (0.94 ± 0.10) contours than in CTV2 (0.82 ± 0.25) and CTV3 (0.86 ± 0.2) contours (P=.0002 and P=.03, respectively; matched-pair Wilcoxon test). The experience of the treating-attending radiation oncologist significantly affected DSC values when all CTV levels were considered (P=.012; matched-pair Wilcoxon text). After a median follow-up time of 38 months, only 10 patients (12%) had local recurrence, regional recurrence, or both, mostly in central high-dose areas. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive peer review planning clinic is an essential component of IMRT QA that led to major changes in one-third of the study population. This process ensured safety related to target definition and led to favorable disease control profiles, with no identifiable recurrences attributable to geometric misses or delineation errors.
PURPOSE: Our department has a long-established comprehensive quality assurance (QA) planning clinic for patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. Our aim is to assess the impact of a real-time peer review QA process on the quantitative and qualitative radiation therapy plan changes in the era of intensity modulated RT (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Prospective data for 85 patients undergoing head and neck IMRT who presented at a biweekly QA clinic after simulation and contouring were collected. A standard data collection form was used to document alterations made during this process. The original pre-QA clinical target volumes (CTVs) approved by the treating-attending physicians were saved before QA and compared with post-QA consensus CTVs. Qualitative assessment was done according to predefined criteria. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) and other volume overlap metrics were calculated for each CTV level and were used for quantitative comparison. Changes are categorized as major, minor, and trivial according to the degree of overlap. Patterns of failure were analyzed and correlated to plan changes. RESULTS: All 85 patients were examined by at least 1 head and neck subspecialist radiation oncologist who was not the treating-attending physician; 80 (94%) were examined by ≥3 faculty members. New clinical findings on physical examination were found in 12 patients (14%) leading to major plan changes. Quantitative DSC analysis revealed significantly better agreement in CTV1 (0.94 ± 0.10) contours than in CTV2 (0.82 ± 0.25) and CTV3 (0.86 ± 0.2) contours (P=.0002 and P=.03, respectively; matched-pair Wilcoxon test). The experience of the treating-attending radiation oncologist significantly affected DSC values when all CTV levels were considered (P=.012; matched-pair Wilcoxon text). After a median follow-up time of 38 months, only 10 patients (12%) had local recurrence, regional recurrence, or both, mostly in central high-dose areas. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive peer review planning clinic is an essential component of IMRT QA that led to major changes in one-third of the study population. This process ensured safety related to target definition and led to favorable disease control profiles, with no identifiable recurrences attributable to geometric misses or delineation errors.
Authors: Jeffrey F Williamson; Peter B Dunscombe; Michael B Sharpe; Bruce R Thomadsen; James A Purdy; James A Deye Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lester J Peters; Brian O'Sullivan; Jordi Giralt; Thomas J Fitzgerald; Andy Trotti; Jacques Bernier; Jean Bourhis; Kally Yuen; Richard Fisher; Danny Rischin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric E Klein; Joseph Hanley; John Bayouth; Fang-Fang Yin; William Simon; Sean Dresser; Christopher Serago; Francisco Aguirre; Lijun Ma; Bijan Arjomandy; Chihray Liu; Carlos Sandin; Todd Holmes Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.071
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: G J Kutcher; L Coia; M Gillin; W F Hanson; S Leibel; R J Morton; J R Palta; J A Purdy; L E Reinstein; G K Svensson Journal: Med Phys Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Isabel J Boero; Anthony J Paravati; Beibei Xu; Ezra E W Cohen; Loren K Mell; Quynh-Thu Le; James D Murphy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Evan J Wuthrick; Qiang Zhang; Mitchell Machtay; David I Rosenthal; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan; André Fortin; Craig L Silverman; Adam Raben; Harold E Kim; Eric M Horwitz; Nancy E Read; Jonathan Harris; Qian Wu; Quynh-Thu Le; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kelly H Zou; Simon K Warfield; Aditya Bharatha; Clare M C Tempany; Michael R Kaus; Steven J Haker; William M Wells; Ferenc A Jolesz; Ron Kikinis Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Avraham Eisbruch; Lon H Marsh; Laura A Dawson; Carol R Bradford; Theodoros N Teknos; Douglas B Chepeha; Francis P Worden; Susan Urba; Alexander Lin; Matthew J Schipper; Gregory T Wolf Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Abdallah S R Mohamed; Carlos E Cardenas; Adam S Garden; Musaddiq J Awan; Crosby D Rock; Sarah A Westergaard; G Brandon Gunn; Abdelaziz M Belal; Ahmed G El-Gowily; Stephen Y Lai; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller; Michalis Aristophanous Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Andrew Wentzel; Peter Hanula; Lisanne V van Dijk; Baher Elgohari; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Carlos E Cardenas; Clifton D Fuller; David M Vock; Guadalupe Canahuate; G E Marai Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Abdallah S R Mohamed; Blaine D Smith; Joshua B Smith; Parag Sevak; Jessica S Malek; Aasheesh Kanwar; Theodora Browne; G Brandon Gunn; Adam S Garden; Steven J Frank; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; Mark Zafereo; Heath Skinner; Stephen Y Lai; Katherine A Hutcheson; Jan S Lewin; Amy E Hessel; Apurva A Thekdi; Randal S Weber; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Karine A Al Feghali; Bassem Y Youssef; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Lara Hilal; Blaine D Smith; Ibrahim Abu-Gheida; Georges Farha; G Brandon Gunn; Jack Phan; Jan Lewin; Apurva Thekdi; William H Morrison; Adam S Garden; Clifton David Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Alexander F Bagley; Adam S Garden; Jay P Reddy; Amy C Moreno; Steven J Frank; David I Rosenthal; William H Morrison; Gary Brandon Gunn; Clifton D Fuller; Shalin J Shah; Renata Ferrarotto; Erich M Sturgis; Neil D Gross; Jack Phan Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Carlos E Cardenas; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Jinzhong Yang; Mark Gooding; Harini Veeraraghavan; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Sweet Ping Ng; Yao Ding; Jihong Wang; Stephen Y Lai; Clifton D Fuller; Greg Sharp Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: G Brandon Gunn; Adam S Garden; Rong Ye; Noveen Ausat; Kristina R Dahlstrom; William H Morrison; C David Fuller; Jack Phan; Jay P Reddy; Shalin J Shah; Lauren L Mayo; Stephen G Chun; Gregory M Chronowski; Amy C Moreno; Jeffery N Myers; Ehab Y Hanna; Bita Esmaeli; Maura L Gillison; Renata Ferrarotto; Katherine A Hutcheson; Mark S Chambers; Lawrence E Ginsberg; Adel K El-Naggar; David I Rosenthal; Xiaorong Ronald Zhu; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25