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: This review article aims to consolidate information regarding existing and emerging implanted devices used in patients undergoing radiation therapy and to categorize levels of attention needed for each device, including which devices require monitoring throughout treatment. Methods and Materials: Based on the collective information from scholar searches, manufacturers’ technical reports, and institutional experiences in the past years, commonly present devices in patients with cancer are compiled. This work summarizes cardiac pacemaker, implanted cardiac defibrillator, hepatic pump, intrathecal pain pump, neurostimulator, shunt, loop recorder, and mediport. Three different classifications of implanted devices can be made based on the potential effect of radiation: life-dependent, nonlife-dependent but with adverse effects if overdosed, and devices without electronic circuits. Implanted devices that contain electronic circuits that would be life-dependent or have adverse effects if overdosed, include cardiac pacemakers, implanted cardiac defibrillators, programmable hepatic pumps, pain pumps, neurostimulators, and loop recorders. Results: Dose exposure to these devices need to be calculated or measured in vivo, especially for cardiac implanted devices, and they should be minimized to assure continued healthy functioning. Treatment planning techniques should be chosen to reduce entry, exit and internal scatter dose. Lower energy photon beams should be used to decrease potential neutron contamination. Implanted devices without electronic circuits are less of a concern. If a patient is life-dependent on the implanted device, it is not recommended to treat the patient with proton therapy. Conclusions: This study reviewed the management of patients with commonly seen implanted devices and summarized a workflow for identifying and planning when a patient has implanted devices. Classifications of implanted devices could help clinicians make proper decisions in regard to patients with specific implanted devices. Lastly, the management of such devices in the era of the pandemic is also discussed in this review article.