Fong C, Sanghera P, Good J, Nightingale P, Hartley A
Hall-Edwards Radiotherapy Research Group, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Hall-Edwards Radiotherapy Research Group, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017 Dec;29(12):841-847. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2017.09.005. Epub 2017 Oct 5.
Peer review of contour volume is a priority in the radiotherapy treatment quality assurance process for head and neck cancer. It is essential that incorporation of peer review activity does not introduce additional delays. An on-demand peer review process was piloted to assess the feasibility and efficiency of this approach, as compared with a historic scheduled weekly approach.
Between November 2016 and April 2017 four head and neck clinicians in one centre took part in an on-demand peer review process. Cases were of radical or adjuvant intent of any histology and submitted on a voluntary basis. The outcome of contour peer review would be one of unchanged (UC), unchanged with variation or discretion noted (UV), minor change (M) or significant change (S). The time difference between the completion of the on-demand peer review was compared with the time difference to a hypothetical next Monday or Tuesday weekly peer review meeting. The time taken to review each case was also documented in the latter period of the pilot project.
In total, 62 cases underwent peer review. Peer review on-demand provided dosimetrists with an average of an extra two working days available per case to meet treatment start dates. The proportion of cases with outcomes UC, UV, M and S were 45%, 16%, 26% and 13%, respectively. The mean peer review time spent per case was 17 min (12 cases). The main reason for S was discrepancy in imaging interpretation (4/8 cases). A lower proportion of oropharyngeal cases were submitted and had S outcomes. A higher proportion of complex cases, e.g. sinonasal/nasopharynx location or previous downstaging chemotherapy had S outcomes. The distribution of S outcomes appears to be similar regardless of clinician experience. The level of peer review activity among individuals differed by workload and job timetable.
On-demand peer review of the head and neck contour volume is feasible, reduces delay to the start of dosimetry planning and bypasses the logistical barriers of weekly meetings. An audit of participation will be required to ensure successful implementation.
在头颈癌放射治疗质量保证过程中,对等剂量体积进行同行评审是一项优先任务。至关重要的是,纳入同行评审活动不能造成额外延误。与传统的每周定期评审方法相比,开展了按需同行评审流程试点,以评估该方法的可行性和效率。
2016年11月至2017年4月期间,一个中心的四位头颈科临床医生参与了按需同行评审流程。病例涵盖任何组织学类型的根治性或辅助性治疗意图,且为自愿提交。轮廓同行评审的结果将为不变(UC)、有变化或需注意但不变(UV)、微小变化(M)或重大变化(S)之一。将按需同行评审完成时间的时间差与假设的下周一或周二每周同行评审会议的时间差进行比较。在试点项目后期也记录了评审每个病例所需的时间。
总共62例病例接受了同行评审。按需同行评审为剂量师提供了平均每个病例额外两个工作日的时间,以满足治疗开始日期。结果为UC、UV、M和S的病例比例分别为45%、16%、26%和13%。每个病例的平均同行评审时间为17分钟(12例)。S的主要原因是影像解读存在差异(4/8例)。口咽病例提交和出现S结果的比例较低。复杂病例(如鼻窦/鼻咽部位或先前降期化疗)出现S结果的比例较高。无论临床医生经验如何,S结果的分布似乎相似。个人之间的同行评审活动水平因工作量和工作时间表而异。
对头颈轮廓体积进行按需同行评审是可行的,减少了剂量测定计划开始的延迟,并绕过了每周会议的后勤障碍。需要对参与情况进行审核以确保成功实施。