Search

Purpose While peer review is critical for quality and safety in radiotherapy, there are neither formal guidelines nor format examples for brachytherapy (BT) peer review. We report on a gynecologic BT peer-review method implemented at a high-volume academic center. Methods and Materials We analyzed discussions at bimonthly gynecologic BT peer-review rounds between July and December 2018. Rounds consisted of 2–5 attending physicians with gynecologic BT expertise, 1–2 BT physicists, and trainees. Peer-review targets included clinical case review, contours, implant technique, dose/fractionation, and target/organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry. The projected/final target and OAR dosimetry were analyzed. Results 55 separate implants from 44 patients were reviewed. Implants were mostly reviewed after the first BT fraction (n = 16, 29%) or at another time point during BT (n = 20, 36%). One (2%) implant was presented prospectively. The applicator type and BT technique were reviewed for all implants. Dose/fractionation was evaluated for 46 implants (84%); contours were discussed for 21 (38%). Target and OAR dosimetry were reviewed for 54 (98%) and 28 implants (51%), respectively. Six cases (11%) underwent minor changes to the applicator type to improve target and/or OAR dosimetry. One case (2%) had a major change recommended to the dose/fractionation. Conclusions Gynecologic BT peer review may enhance BT quality by allowing for implant optimization and formal review of challenging cases, ultimately improving medical decision-making and team communication. Peer review should be implemented in centers offering gynecologic BT.

Purpose Incident learning is a critical tool to improve patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 established essential legal protections to allow for the collection and analysis of medical incidents nationwide. Methods and materials Working with a federally listed patient safety organization (PSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). This paper provides an overview of the RO-ILS background, development, structure, and workflow, as well as examples of preliminary data and lessons learned. RO-ILS is actively collecting, analyzing, and reporting patient safety events. Results As of February 24, 2015, 46 institutions have signed contracts with Clarity PSO, with 33 contracts pending. Of these, 27 sites have entered 739 patient safety events into local database space, with 358 events (48%) pushed to the national database. Conclusions To establish an optimal safety culture, radiation oncology departments should establish formal systems for incident learning that include participation in a nationwide incident learning program such as RO-ILS.

Purpose Physician peer review seeks to improve the quality of care through the evaluation of physician performance, specifically medical decision making and technical expertise. To establish current peer review practice patterns, evaluate interest in recommendations for peer review, and establish a framework for future recommendations, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) surveyed its physician members. Methods and materials A radiation oncology-specific peer review survey instrument was developed, formally tested, and found to meet established levels of reliability and validity. The final instrument was delivered using a web-based survey platform including reminders. All ASTRO physician-members and members-in-training worldwide were invited by email to participate. Results A total of 5674 physicians were contacted starting in January 2013. A total of 572 physicians participated (10%) yielding a ±4% margin of error. Those responding were split evenly between academic providers and private practice and others. The median time since training=16years, median number of new patients per year=215, and median practice size=6 physicians; 83% of respondents were involved in peer review and 75% were comfortable with their program. Of those involved, 65% report doing some review before radiation begins. Of patients treated by these physicians, 56% are reviewed before treatment. Peer review elements reviewed include overall treatment strategy (86%), dose and fractionation (89%), contouring (59%), and isodose or dose-volume histogram (75%). Ninety percent of physicians have changed radiation plans because of peer review. These providers make changes in 7%-10% of cases. Seventy-four percent of physicians agree that ASTRO should make formal peer review recommendations, with 7% in opposition. Conclusions This survey suggests that peer review in radiation oncology is common and leads to changes in management in a meaningful fraction of cases. There is much variation in the manner of conducting, and reported utility of, peer review. The majority of ASTRO physician members support formal recommendations and guidance on peer review.

This report is part of a series of white papers commissioned for the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors as part of ASTRO's Target Safely Campaign, focusing on the role of peer review as an important component of a broad safety/quality assurance (QA) program. Peer review is one of the most effective means for assuring the quality of qualitative, and potentially controversial, patient-specific decisions in radiation oncology. This report summarizes many of the areas throughout radiation therapy that may benefit from the application of peer review. Each radiation oncology facility should evaluate the issues raised and develop improved ways to apply the concept of peer review to its individual process and workflow. This might consist of a daily multidisciplinary (eg, physicians, dosimetrists, physicists, therapists) meeting to review patients being considered for, or undergoing planning for, radiation therapy (eg, intention to treat and target delineation), as well as meetings to review patients already under treatment (eg, adequacy of image guidance). This report is intended to clarify and broaden the understanding of radiation oncology professionals regarding the meaning, roles, benefits, and targets for peer review as a routine quality assurance tool. It is hoped that this work will be a catalyst for further investigation, development, and study of the efficacy of peer review techniques and how these efforts can help improve the safety and quality of our treatments.

Purpose Routine assessment was made of tumor metabolic activity as measured by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in Stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This report describes PET correlates prospectively collected after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with medically inoperable NSCLC. Methods and Materials 14 consecutive patients with medically inoperable Stage I NSCLC were enrolled. All patients received SBRT to 60–66 Gy in three fractions. Patients underwent serial planned FDG-PET/computed tomography fusion imaging before SBRT and at 2, 26, and 52 weeks after SBRT. Results With median follow-up of 30.2 months, no patients experienced local failure. One patient developed regional failure, 1 developed distant failure, and 1 developed a second primary. The median tumor maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max ) before SBRT was 8.70. The median SUV max values at 2, 26, and 52 weeks after SBRT were 6.04, 2.80, and 3.58, respectively. Patients with low pre-SBRT SUV were more likely to experience initial 2-week rises in SUV, whereas patients with high pre-SBRT SUV commonly had SUV declines 2 weeks after treatment ( p = 0.036). Six of 13 patients had primary tumor SUV max >3.5 at 12 months after SBRT but remained without evidence of local disease failure on further follow-up. Conclusions A substantial proportion of patients may have moderately elevated FDG-PET SUV max at 12 months without evidence of local failure on further follow-up. Thus, slightly elevated PET SUV max should not be considered a surrogate for local treatment failure. Our data do not support routine serial FDG-PET/computed tomography for follow-up of patients receiving SBRT for Stage I NSCLC.

Purpose To examine the effect of baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (Dl co ) on posttreatment survival and pulmonary function decrease after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods and Materials Seventy medically inoperable patients with Stage I NSCLC were treated with definitive SBRT to a dose of 6,000 (Stage IA) or 6,600 cGy (Stage IB), given in three equal fractions. Baseline and serial posttreatment pulmonary function data were collected. Results Median age was 70.5 years, and median follow-up was 2.17 years. Median pretreatment FEV 1 and Dl co were 1.05 L and 10.06 mg/min/mm Hg, respectively. There was no significant decrease in survival in patients with baseline FEV 1 and Dl co less than the median value and less than the lowest quartile, whereas patients with values greater than the highest quartile of baseline FEV 1 had significantly inferior survival. There was no significant effect of pretreatment FEV 1 or Dl co on posttreatment levels. There was a statistically significant decrease in Dl co of 1.11 mg/min/mm Hg/y. Conclusions Poor baseline pulmonary function did not predict decreased survival or pulmonary function after treatment. A statistically significant decrease in Dl co after treatment was seen, similar to decreases seen in studies delivering standard thoracic radiotherapy. We conclude that low pretreatment FEV 1 and/or Dl co alone should not be used to exclude patients with NSCLC from treatment with SBRT.

Purpose Routine assessment is made of tumor metabolic activity as measured by 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This report describes PET correlates prospectively collected after SBRT for patients with medically inoperable NSCLC.