ABSTRACT
Purpose: Our multisite academic radiation department reviewed our experience with transitioning from weekly primarily retrospective to daily primarily prospective peer review to improve plan quality and decrease the rate of plan revisions after treatment start. Methods and Materials: This study was an institutional review board-approved prospective comparison of radiation treatment plan review outcomes of plans reviewed weekly (majority within 1 week after treatment start) versus plans reviewed daily (majority before treatment start, except brachytherapy, frame-based radiosurgery, and some emergent plans). Deviations were based on peer comments and considered major if plan revisions were recommended before the next fraction and minor if modifications were suggested but not required. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 distribution tests of independence; means were compared using independent t tests. Results: In all, 798 patients with 1124 plans were reviewed: 611 plans weekly and 513 plans daily. Overall, 76 deviations (6.8%) were noted. Rates of any deviation were increased in the daily era (8.6% vs 5.2%; P = .026), with higher rates of major deviations in the daily era (4.1% vs 1.6%; P = .012). Median working days between initial simulation and treatment was the same across eras (8 days). Deviations led to a plan revision at a higher rate in the daily era (84.1% vs 31.3%; P < .001). Conclusions: Daily prospective peer review is feasible in a multisite academic setting. Daily peer review with emphasis on prospective plan evaluation increased constructive plan feedback, plan revisions, and plan revisions being implemented before treatment start.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In radiation oncology, peer review is a process where subjective treatment planning decisions are assessed by those independent of the prescribing physician. Before March 2020, all peer review sessions occurred in person; however due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the peer-review workflow was transitioned from in-person to virtual. We sought to assess any differences between virtual versus in-person prospective peer review. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients scheduled to receive nonemergent nonprocedural radiation therapy (RT) were presented daily at prospective peer-review before the start of RT administration. Planning software was used, with critical evaluation of several variables including treatment intent, contour definition, treatment target coverage, and risk to critical structures. A deviation was defined as any suggested plan revision. RESULTS: In the study, 274 treatment plans evaluated in-person in 2017 to 2018 were compared with 195 plans evaluated virtually in 2021. There were significant differences in palliative intent (36% vs 22%; P = .002), but not in total time between simulation and the start of treatment (9.2 vs 10.0 days; P = .10). Overall deviations (8.0% in-person vs 2.6% virtual; P = .015) were significantly reduced in virtual peer review. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective daily peer review of radiation oncology treatment plans can be performed virtually with similar timeliness of patient care compared with in-person peer review. A decrease in deviation rate in the virtual peer review setting will need to be further investigated to determine whether virtual workflow can be considered a standard of care.
