Enhancing quality assurance in radiotherapy for gynaecological cancers: implementation of an on-demand peer review process.

OBJECTIVES: Ensuring high-quality radiotherapy requires peer-reviewing target volumes. The Royal College of Radiologists recommends peer review specifically for individual target volumes in cases of gynaecological cancers. This study presents the outcomes of implementing an on-demand peer review system for gynaecological cancers within our institute. METHODS: The peer review process was planned for gynaecological cancer cases intended for curative radiotherapy. After junior clinical oncologists (COs) completed the segmentation, two senior COs specializing in gynaecological cancers conducted the peer review. All peer review outcomes were recorded prospectively. The audit process compliance, the proportion of patients requiring major and minor modifications in target volumes, the direction of changes, and the factors influencing these changes were reported. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were eligible, and out of these, 204 (88.3%) patients underwent at least one peer review. Among the patients, 108 required major modifications in their target volumes. P-charts revealed a stabilization in the need for major modifications at the end of three months, indicating that 38.2% and 28% of patients still required major modifications for the nodal and primary CTV, respectively. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that major modifications were associated with the use of extended field radiotherapy and radical radiation in non-cervical primary cases. CONCLUSIONS: An on-demand peer review system was feasible and resulted in clinically meaningful, major modifications in the target volumes for 53% of patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Gynaecological cancers require ongoing peer review to ensure quality of care in radiotherapy. A flexible on-demand system not only ensures that patient treatment start is not delayed but also has an important educational role for junior trainees.

Clinical profile and outcomes in cervical cancer: An audit from a tertiary cancer center.

Background: Carcinoma cervix contributes to a major proportion of cancer treatment in tertiary oncology centers. The outcomes are dependent on multiple factors. We conducted an audit to establish the pattern of treatment practiced for carcinoma cervix at the institute and suggest changes thereof to improve the quality of care. Methodology: A retrospective observational study of 306 diagnosed cases of carcinoma cervix was carried out for the year 2010. Data was collected with regards to diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. Results: Out of 306 cases, 102 (33.33%) patients received only radiation therapy and 204 (66.66%) patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The most common chemotherapy used was weekly cisplatin 99 (48.52%), followed by weekly carboplatin 60 (29.41%) and three weekly cisplatin 45 (22.05%). Disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years was 36.6% with patients of overall treatment time (OTT) of <8 weeks and >8 weeks showing DFS of 41.8% and 34% (P = 0.149), respectively. Overall survival (OS) was 34%. Concurrent chemoradiation improved overall survival by a median of 8 months (P = 0.035). There was a trend towards improved survival with three weekly cisplatin regimen, however, insignificant. Stage correlated with improved overall survival significantly with stage I and II showing 40% and stage III and IV showing 32% (P < 0.05) OS. Acute toxicity (grade I-III) was higher in the concurrent chemoradiation group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This audit was a first of its kind in the institute and threw light on the treatment and survival trends. It also revealed the number of patients lost to follow-up and prompted us to review the reasons for it. It has laid the foundation for future audits and recognized the importance of electronic medical records in the maintenance of data.

Dosimetric comparison of manual forward planning with uniform dwell times versus volume-based inverse planning in interstitial brachytherapy of cervical malignancies.

AIM: Dosimetic comparison of manual forward planning(MFP) with inverse planning(IP) for interstitial brachytherapy(ISBT) in cervical carcinoma. BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy planning by MFP is more reliable but time-consuming method, whereas IP has been explored more often for its ease and rapidness. The superiority of either is yet to be established. METHODOLOGY: Two plans were created on data sets of 24 patients of cervical carcinoma who had undergone ISBT, one by MFP with uniform dwell times and another IP on BrachyVision 13.7 planning system with a dose prescription of 600 cGy. Isodose shaper was used for improving conformity & homogeneity. Dosimetric parameters for target and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded. Conformity index (COIN), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose index (OI), Coverage index (CI) and dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) were calculated. RESULTS: Mean high risk clinical target volume: 73.05(±20.7)cc, D90: 5.51 Gy vs. 5.6 Gy (p = 0.017), V100: 81.77 % vs. 83.74 % (p = 0.002), V150: 21.7 % vs. 24.93 % (p = 0.002), V200: 6.3 % vs. 6.4 % (p=0.75) for IP and MFP, respectively. CI: 0.81(IP) and 0.83(MFP) (p = 0.003); however, COIN was 0.79 for both plans. D2cc of OARs was statistically better with IP (bladder 54.7 % vs. 56.1 %, p = 0.03; rectum 63 % vs. 64.7 %, (p = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: Both MFP and IP are equally acceptable dosimetrically. With higher dose achieved to the target, for a similar OAR dose, MFP provides greater user flexibility of dwell positions within the target as well as better optimization. Isodose shaper may be carefully used for fine tuning. Larger sample sizes and clinical correlation will better answer the superiority of one over the other.