Article ; Online: Systematic Implementation of Effective Quality Assurance Processes for the Assessment of Radiation Target Volumes in Head and Neck Cancer.
2024 Volume 14, Issue 3, Page(s) e205–e213
Abstract: Purpose: Significant heterogeneity exists in clinical quality assurance (QA) practices within radiation oncology departments, with most chart rounds lacking prospective peer-reviewed contour evaluation. This has the potential to significantly affect ... ...
| Abstract | Purpose: Significant heterogeneity exists in clinical quality assurance (QA) practices within radiation oncology departments, with most chart rounds lacking prospective peer-reviewed contour evaluation. This has the potential to significantly affect patient outcomes, particularly for head and neck cancers (HNC) given the large variance in target volume delineation. With this understanding, we incorporated a prospective systematic peer contour-review process into our workflow for all patients with HNC. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of implementing prospective peer review into practice for our National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center and to report factors associated with contour modifications. Methods and materials: Starting in November 2020, our department adopted a systematic QA process with real-time metrics, in which contours for all patients with HNC treated with radiation therapy were prospectively peer reviewed and graded. Contours were graded with green (unnecessary), yellow (minor), or red (major) colors based on the degree of peer-recommended modifications. Contours from November 2020 through September 2021 were included for analysis. Results: Three hundred sixty contours were included. Contour grades were made up of 89.7% green, 8.9% yellow, and 1.4% red grades. Physicians with >12 months of clinical experience were less likely to have contour changes requested than those with <12 months (8.3% vs 40.9%; P < .001). Contour grades were significantly associated with physician case load, with physicians presenting more than the median number of 50 cases having significantly less modifications requested than those presenting <50 (6.7% vs 13.3%; P = .013). Physicians working with a resident or fellow were less likely to have contour changes requested than those without a trainee (5.2% vs 12.6%; P = .039). Frequency of major modification requests significantly decreased over time after adoption of prospective peer contour review, with no red grades occurring >6 months after adoption. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of prospective peer contour-review implementation into systematic clinical QA processes for HNC. Physician experience proved to be the highest predictor of approved contours. A growth curve was demonstrated, with major modifications declining after prospective contour review implementation. Even within a high-volume academic practice with subspecialist attendings, >10% of patients had contour changes made as a direct result of prospective peer review. |
|---|---|
| MeSH term(s) | Humans ; Head and Neck Neoplasms/radiotherapy ; Quality Assurance, Health Care/standards ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/standards ; Prospective Studies ; Female ; Radiation Oncology/standards ; Radiation Oncology/methods ; Male |
| Language | English |
| Publishing date | 2024-01-17 |
| Publishing country | United States |
| Document type | Journal Article |
| ZDB-ID | 2655748-4 |
| ISSN | 1879-8519 ; 1879-8500 |
| ISSN (online) | 1879-8519 |
| ISSN | 1879-8500 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.prro.2023.12.012 |
| Database | MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE |
More links
Kategorien
Order via subito
This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.