Search

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Some patients elect for self-pay proton radiation therapy (PT) in the United States, but price transparency is a significant concern. The U.S. government recently declared that hospitals must provide a comprehensive list of "standard" charges for all services. Yet, the proportion of compliant proton centers is unknown, as is the extent to which prices vary nationally., Methods and Materials: We obtained online chargemasters from U.S. proton centers. Technical charges for per fraction delivery of PT of varying complexity were obtained by billing code (77520, 77522, 77523, 77525) and keyword searches. Prices were adjusted for cost-of-living differences using the Medicare geographic cost price index. The relationship between prices for each PT billing code and cost of living was assessed. The interrelationship in cost between codes was examined. The effect of geographic region and other key variables on pricing was explored., Results: Thirty-six proton centers were identified. Twenty-eight (78%) had accessible chargemasters with 20 (56%) listing at least one PT charge. The median prices for billing codes 77520, 77522, 77523, 77525 were $4707, $4712, $5904, and $6690, respectively, with a trend toward greater cost for more complex therapy (77523, 77525; P = .056). Large ranges ($16,863, $16,059, $18,414, $22,143) resulted in ratios of maximum/minimum prices of 5 to 10x. Only prices for code 77522 were associated with cost of living (P = .039). Across institutions, prices for all 4 codes were positively interrelated (all P < .0001). Prices differed between regions (P < .0001) but not by National Cancer Institute designation., Conclusions: List prices for PT differ dramatically between institutions and regions without obvious explanation, raising the concerning possibility that such variation is largely arbitrary. Policy solutions that promote rationalized pricing would greatly benefit this patient population., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)