Radiation Oncology Peer Review in a Community Setting: The Value of Prospective Review.

Peer review is an important component of any radiation oncology continuous quality improvement program. While limited guidelines exist, there is no consensus about how peer review should be performed, and large variations exist among different institutions. The purpose of this report is to describe our experience with peer review at a busy Radiation Oncology clinic and to evaluate the difference between prospective and retrospective peer review. We also performed a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of the peer review process. Starting in 2015, every peer review session was tracked, including recommended changes to treatment plans. We reviewed the frequency, types and severity of these changes. A team of physicians and physicists conducted an FMEA of the peer review process. Between April 2015 and June 2020, a total of 3,691 patients were peer-reviewed. Out of those, 1,903 were prospective reviews (51.6%). Plans reviewed before treatment were almost 4.5 times more likely to be changed by peer review than those reviewed after the start of treatment (0.9% vs 0.2%). Plan changes after the start of treatment had a higher severity than changes prior to the start of treatment. FMEA identified several critical components of peer review. While there is no national standard for peer review, it is evident that prospective peer review is preferable. There may be a subconscious reluctance to change plans already underway, which could be a barrier to improving plans with the peer review process. Rather than reviewing in a group setting, it would be ideal to individually assign review tasks that are embedded in the clinical flow, assuring prospective review for all patients prior to final physician approval. Individual review rather than group review may be more candid, due to interpersonal concerns about publicly disagreeing with colleagues.

Assessing the performance of an automated breast treatment planning software.

PURPOSE: To assess the dosimetric performance of an automated breast planning software. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 15 breast cancer patients treated with tangent fields according to the RTOG 1005 protocol and 30 patients treated off-protocol. Planning with electronic compensators (eComps) via manual, iterative fluence editing was compared to an automated planning program called EZFluence (EZF) (Radformation, Inc.). We compared the minimum dose received by 95% of the volume (D95%), D90%, the volume receiving at least 105% of prescription (V105%), V95%, the conformity index of the V95% and PTV volumes (CI95%), and total monitor units (MUs). The PTV_Eval structure generated by EZF was compared to the RTOG 1005 breast PTV_Eval structure. RESULTS: The average D95% was significantly greater for the EZF plans, 95.0%, vs. the original plans 93.2% (P = 0.022). CI95% was less for the EZF plans, 1.18, than the original plans, 1.48 (P = 0.09). D90% was only slightly greater for EZF, averaging at 98.3% for EZF plans and 97.3% for the original plans (P = 0.0483). V105% (cc) was, on average, 27.8cc less in the EZF breast plans, which was significantly less than for those manually planned. The average number of MUs for the EZF plans, 453, was significantly less than original protocol plans, 500 (P = 8 × 10-6 ). The average difference between the protocol PTV volume and the EZF PTV volume was 196 cc, with all but two cases having a larger EZF PTV volume (P = 0.020). CONCLUSION: EZF improved dose homogeneity, coverage, and MU efficiency vs. manually produced eComp plans. The EZF-generated PTV eval is based on the volume encompassed by the tangents, and is not appropriate for dosimetric comparison to constraints for RTOG 1005 PTV eval. EZF produced dosimetrically similar or superior plans to manual, iteratively derived plans and may also offer time and efficiency benefits.

Hyper-dense foreign bodies found in the bowel during IGRT following brachytherapy.

A 28-year-old female with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the cervix was undergoing treatment with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), concurrent chemotherapy and high dose rate brachytherapy (BT). On-board imaging obtained prior to one of her external beam treatments revealed four radiopaque foreign bodies in her abdomen. The patient's treatment was delayed for further work-up of this new finding. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the patient had recently started taking bismuth subsalicylate tablets (brand name: Pepto-Bismol, Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, OH). A computed tomography (CT) scan of the tablets confirmed the size and Hounsfield Unit (HU) values coincided with the foreign object properties seen on the patient's scan. This unexpected finding is important to recognize as it consequently lead to a delay in treatment, additional imaging, and patient anxiety.

Clinical and cosmetic outcomes in patients treated with high-dose-rate electronic brachytherapy for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively analyze clinical and cosmetic outcomes in patients treated for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with high-dose-rate (HDR) electronic brachytherapy (EBT) using surface applicators. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 127 patients who had 154 NMSC lesions, 149 of which were basal cell carcinoma, treated with HDR EBT at our institution between July 2012 and March 2014. Lesions were treated to 40 Gy in 8 fractions. Local control, acute toxicity, late toxicity, and cosmetic outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. Acute and late toxicities were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Cosmetic outcomes were graded using a standard scale based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Schema. RESULTS: Median (range) follow-up from completion of treatment was 16.1 (3.4-34.8 months). The overall crude recurrence rate was 1.3% (n = 2). Grade 0 to 1 acute radiation dermatitis was observed in 52.6% of treated lesions (n = 81), grade 2 in 34.4% (n = 53), and grade 3 in 13.0% (n = 20). No acute toxicity greater than grade 3 was observed and all acute toxic events resolved after treatment. Grade 0 to 1 late toxicity was observed in 94.2% of cases (n = 145), and grade 2 in 5.8% (n = 9). No late toxicity greater than grade 2 was observed. Across the 152 controlled lesions, cosmetic results were excellent in 94.2% of treated lesions (n = 145), good in 3.3% (n = 5), fair in 0.7% (n = 1), and poor in 0.7% (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: HDR EBT confers promising local control, minimal toxicity, and excellent cosmesis in our institutional experience. It should be considered ideal for NMSC of the head and neck, particularly for basal cell carcinoma involving central facial locations where surgical cosmesis may be inferior.