Search

Purpose: Radiation treatment plans undergo peer review during chart rounds, but changes to treatment volumes would require replanning. Our group implemented weekly head and neck cancer “volume rounds” to peer review all target volumes for head and neck cancer before radiation therapy (RT) planning and chart rounds. Methods and Materials: We analyzed modifications made to planning target volumes (PTVs) at volume rounds for consecutive nonproton head and neck cancer cases from May 2020 to May 2021. Nine head and neck radiation oncologists participated in weekly volume rounds during this time. Recommendations were categorized as no changes, minor changes, major changes, additional workup (eg, biopsy or imaging), and consultation or tumor board discussion needed before the start of RT. Minor changes to PTVs generally did not require a second review before treatment planning while major changes did. Results: PTVs for 511 cases involving 432 patients underwent peer review and 298 (58.3%) of these cases did not require any modifications before treatment planning. Minor and major changes were recommended in 75 (14.7%) and 86 (16.8%) cases, respectively. Forty-five (8.8%) cases were recommended to have additional workup and 23 (4.5%) required additional consultation with nonradiation surgeons or medical oncologists. Of the 45 cases that were recommended for additional workup, 40 underwent biopsy or imaging. Positive findings on imaging or biopsy occurred in 13 patients, leading to a significant change in management, including 4 patients who underwent additional surgery after positive findings before the start of RT. Conclusions: Prospective peer review during head and neck cancer volume rounds led to frequent minor and major alterations to PTVs. Significant changes in the overall treatment plan, such as additional surgery before start of RT, occurred in a minority of patients.

Purpose: With multiple phase 2 trials supporting the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in oligo-metastatic disease, we evaluated practices that could inform effective implementation of an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. Methods and Materials: Using a context-focused realist methodology, an advisory committee of interprofessional clinicians met over a series of semistructured teleconference meetings to identify challenges in implementing an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. Consideration was given to 2 models of care: a subspecialist anatomic expertise model versus a single-practitioner “quarterback” model. Results: The advisory committee structured recommendations within a context-mechanism-outcome framework. In summary, the committee recommends that during patient workup, a single practitioner arranges the minimum number of necessary tests, with case presentation at an appropriate multidisciplinary tumor board, including careful review of all previous treatments, and enrollment on clinical trials when possible. At simulation, common patient positions and immobilization on a single simulation scan for multiple sites is recommended. During radiation planning, dose-fractionation regimens should safely facilitate cumulative dose calculations, a single isocenter should be considered for multiple close targets to reduce treatment time, and adherence to strict quality assurance protocols is strongly recommended. Treatment duration should be minimized by treating multiple sites on the same day or choosing shorter dose fractionations. Team communication, thorough documentation, and standardized nomenclature can reduce system errors. Follow-up should aim to minimize redundant clinical appointments and imaging scans. Expert radiology review may be required to interpret post-SBRT imaging. Conclusions: These guidelines inform best clinical practices for implementing an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. Iterations using a realist approach may further expand on local contexts.