RESUMO
Purpose: Head and neck (HN) radiotherapy (RT) is complex, involving multiple target and organ at risk (OAR) structures delineated by the radiation oncologist. Site-agnostic peer review after RT plan completion is often inadequate for thorough review of these structures. In-depth review of RT contours is critical to maintain high-quality RT and optimal patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: In August 2020, the HN RT Quality Assurance Conference, a weekly teleconference that included at least one radiation oncology HN specialist, was activated at our institution. Targets and OARs were reviewed in detail prior to RT plan creation. A parallel implementation study recorded patient factors and outcomes of these reviews. A major change was any modification to the high-dose planning target volume (PTV) or the prescription dose/fractionation; a minor change was modification to the intermediate-dose PTV, low-dose PTV, or any OAR. We analysed the results of consecutive RT contour review in the first 20 months since its initiation. Results: A total of 208 patients treated by 8 providers were reviewed: 86·5% from the primary tertiary care hospital and 13·5% from regional practices. A major change was recommended in 14·4% and implemented in 25 of 30 cases (83·3%). A minor change was recommended in 17·3% and implemented in 32 of 36 cases (88·9%). A survey of participants found that all (n = 11) strongly agreed or agreed that the conference was useful. Conclusion: Dedicated review of RT targets/OARs with a HN subspecialist is associated with substantial rates of suggested and implemented modifications to the contours.
RESUMO
AIMS: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, we previously identified decreased rates of radiotherapy (RT) peer review (PR) discussion and plan changes in virtual versus in-person PR conferences. To expand on these findings, we continued to prospectively collect data on all PR conferences from 2021 to 2023 and performed a follow-up analysis before and after the transition back to in-person PR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of weekly PR cases was queried for consecutive cases reviewed before and after the transition from virtual to in-person conferences. Rates of PR discussion and change recommendations were summarized and compared between the virtual and in-person groups. A survey was developed and administered to assess participants' perceived levels of engagement, opinions on optimal PR format, and preferences for future meetings before and 3 months after the transition back to in-person PR. RESULTS: In total, 2,103 RT plans were reviewed: 1,590 virtually and 513 after the transition back to in-person. There was no difference in faculty attendance between groups. The proportion of cases with PR discussion increased from virtual (9.8%) to in-person (25.5%) format (p < 0.001). In the virtual group, 8.1% of cases had 1 topic and 1.7% had 2+ topics discussed. This increased to 15.8% and 9.7% during in-person PR, respectively (p < 0.001). The rate of change recommendation also increased from 1.5% (virtual) to 3.3% (in-person, p = 0.016). Among cases with at least 1 topic discussed, there was no difference in changes. Survey-reported distraction significantly decreased from virtual to in-person PR (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Upon returning to in-person PR conferences, peer discussion and plan change recommendations significantly increased and returned to pre-pandemic levels, and participants' perceived levels of distraction were reduced. In an increasingly virtual world, additional efforts to develop best practices that maximize PR discussion and minimize distraction outside virtual conferences are warranted.
RESUMO
AIMS: Clinical equipoise exists regarding early-stage lung cancer treatment among patients as trials comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection are unavailable. Given the potential differences in treatment effectiveness and side-effects, we sought to determine the associations between treatment type, decision regret and depression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study of patients with stage IA-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with planned treatment with SBRT or surgical resection was conducted. Decision regret and depression were measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment, respectively. Mixed linear regression modelling examined associations between treatment and decision regret adjusting for patient sociodemographics. RESULTS: Among 211 study participants with early-stage lung cancer, 128 (61%) patients received SBRT and 83 (39%) received surgical resection. The mean age was 73 years (standard deviation = 8); 57% were female; 79% were White non-Hispanic. In the entire cohort at 3 months post-treatment, 72 (34%) and 57 (27%) patients had mild and severe decision regret, respectively. Among patients who received SBRT or surgery, 71% and 46% of patients experienced at least mild decision regret at 3 months, respectively. DRS scores increased at 6 months and decreased slightly at 12 months of follow-up in both groups. Higher DRS scores were associated with SBRT treatment (adjusted mean difference = 4.18, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 7.54) and depression (adjusted mean difference = 3.49, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 6.47). Neither patient satisfaction with their provider nor decision-making role concordance was associated with DRS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most early-stage lung cancer patients experienced at least mild decision regret, which was associated with SBRT treatment and depression symptoms. Findings suggest patients with early-stage lung cancer may not be receiving optimal treatment decision-making support. Therefore, opportunities for improved patient-clinician communication probably exist.