100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?

PURPOSE: Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. RESULTS: Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). CONCLUSION: Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.

Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology clinical guidelines for stereotactic body radiation therapy in lymph node oligometastases.

Data in the literature support the existence of a state of limited metastases or oligometastases. Favorable outcomes have been observed in selected patients with such oligometastases that are treated with local ablative therapies, which include surgical extirpation, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and radiofrequency ablation. The role of SBRT in the setting of lymph node oligometastases is still emerging but the early results for local control are promising. However, the biggest challenge is to identify patients who will benefit from treatment of their oligometastatic disease with local aggressive therapy. Patients are initially categorized based upon examination of the initial biopsy, location, stage, and previous treatments received. Appropriate patient management with SBRT requires an understanding of several clinicopathological features that help to identify several subsets of patients with more responsive tumors and a good tolerance to SBRT. In an effort to incorporate the most recent evidence, here the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology presents guidelines for using SBRT in lymph node oligometastases.

Initial experience with stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy.

PURPOSE: Single-institution single-arm prospective study. Endpoint: To assess whether there are more than 5 % of men having grade 3 GU or any grade 3 GI acute toxicity during stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy. METHODS: Since May 2012, 17 prostate cancer patients were treated with helical tomotherapy. The exclusion criteria used are the following: Gleason score ≥8, PSA >20 ng/ml, cT3b-4, IPSS ≥20 and history of acute urinary retention. CTV included the prostate gland and 1 cm of seminal vesicles in the low-risk group (LR) or the seminal vesicles completely in the intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) NCCN groups. CTV margins ranged from 2 to 8 mm, while PTV margins were 2 to 9 mm. Patients received eight fractions of 5.48 Gy (LR) or 5.65 Gy (IR, HR) on alternate days. Total equivalent doses at 2 Gy per fraction are 87.4 for LR and 92.3 Gy for IR-HR using an α/ß value of 1.5. Correspondent figures for a α/ß of 3 are 74.3 Gy and 78.2 Gy, respectively. Megavoltage CT (MVCT) for on-line correction was taken before every fraction. RESULTS: The patient distribution by risk group is 29, 47 and 24 % for LR, IR and HR, respectively. 82 % received neoadjuvant-concomitant hormonal therapy. Acute GU toxicity grade 1, 2 and 3 was found in 70, 6 and 0 % of men. GI toxicity was observed in 50, 0 and 0. After 136 MVCT, the standard deviation of the mean individual corrections in the anterior-posterior direction was 2.5 mm. CONCLUSION: SBRT for prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy is feasible. Initial results show an early toxicity profile no worse than SBRT delivered with robotic radiosurgery or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.