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

PURPOSE: Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. RESULTS: Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). CONCLUSION: Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.

Impact of real-time, dose-escalated permanent seed implant brachytherapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate biochemical control and toxicity in patients who underwent 125I seed brachytherapy (BT) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2004-December 2014, 395 patients with intermediate-risk PCa underwent 125I BT. Of these, 117 underwent preoperative planning (PP; 145 Gy) and 278 real-time intraoperative preplanning (IoP; 160 Gy). All patients were followed for ≥ 6 months (> 5 years in 48% of patients and > 7 years in 13%). Median follow-up was 59 months. RESULTS: Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) rates at 5 and 8 years were, respectively, 91.7% and 82.1%. By treatment group, the corresponding BRFS rates were 93.5% and 90% for IoP and 89% and 76.8% for PP. The maximum dose to the urethra remained unchanged (217 Gy) despite the dose escalation (from 145 to 160 Gy), without any significant increase in treatment-related toxicity (p = 0.13). Overall toxicity outcomes in the series were excellent, with only 3 cases (0.76%) of grade 3 genitourinary toxicity. CONCLUSION: The real-time intraoperative planning technique at 160 Gy yields better biochemical controls than the preoperative planning technique at 145 Gy. Dose escalation did not increase urinary toxicity. The excellent results obtained with the IoP BT technique support its use as the first treatment option in this patient population.