Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population & Global Health, King's College London, London, UK; Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2021 Apr;33(4):248-260. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.10.017. Epub 2020 Nov 4.
Peer review in radiotherapy is an essential step in clinical quality assurance to avoid planning-related errors that can impact on patient safety and treatment outcomes. Despite recommendations that radiotherapy centres should include peer review in their regular quality assurance pathway, adoption of the practice has not been universal, and to date there have been no formal guidelines set out to standardise the process. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to determine existing practice in radiotherapy peer review internationally, with respect to meeting structure and processes, in order to define a standardised framework. A PubMed and Web of Science search identified 17 articles detailing peer review practice. The results revealed significant variation in peer review processes between institutions, and a lack of consensus on documentation and reporting. Variations in the grading of outcomes of peer review were also noted. Taking into account the results of this review, a framework for standardising the process and outcome documentation for peer review has been developed. This can be utilised by radiotherapy centres introducing or updating peer review practice, and can facilitate meaningful evaluation of the clinical impact of peer review in the future.
放射治疗中的同行评议是临床质量保证的重要步骤，可避免与计划相关的错误，从而影响患者安全和治疗效果。尽管建议放射治疗中心应将同行评议纳入其常规质量保证途径，但该实践并未普及，迄今为止，尚未制定出正式指南来规范该过程。我们对文献进行了系统回顾，以确定国际上放射治疗同行评议在会议结构和流程方面的现有实践，以便确定标准化框架。通过 PubMed 和 Web of Science 搜索确定了 17 篇详细介绍同行评议实践的文章。结果表明，各机构之间的同行评议过程存在显著差异，并且在文件记录和报告方面缺乏共识。同行评议结果的分级也存在差异。考虑到本次审查的结果，已经为同行评议过程和结果文件记录制定了标准化框架。正在引入或更新同行评议实践的放射治疗中心可以利用该框架，并为未来对同行评议的临床影响进行有意义的评估提供便利。
