McClelland, Shearwood IIIAmy Achiko, FloraBartlett, Gregory K.Watson, Gordon A.Holmes, Jordan A.Rhome, Ryan M.DesRosiers, Colleen M.Hutchins, Karen M.Shiue, KevinAgrawal, Namita2022-02-242022-02-242021-11McClelland, S., Amy Achiko, F., Bartlett, G. K., Watson, G. A., Holmes, J. A., Rhome, R. M., DesRosiers, C. M., Hutchins, K. M., Shiue, K., & Agrawal, N. (2021). Analysis of Virtual Versus In-Person Prospective Peer Review Workflow in a Multisite Academic Radiation Oncology Department. Advances in Radiation Oncology, 6(6), 100766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2021.1007662452-1094https://hdl.handle.net/1805/27931Purpose In radiation oncology, peer review is a process where subjective treatment planning decisions are assessed by those independent of the prescribing physician. Before March 2020, all peer review sessions occurred in person; however due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the peer-review workflow was transitioned from in-person to virtual. We sought to assess any differences between virtual versus in-person prospective peer review. Methods and Materials Patients scheduled to receive nonemergent nonprocedural radiation therapy (RT) were presented daily at prospective peer-review before the start of RT administration. Planning software was used, with critical evaluation of several variables including treatment intent, contour definition, treatment target coverage, and risk to critical structures. A deviation was defined as any suggested plan revision. Results In the study, 274 treatment plans evaluated in-person in 2017 to 2018 were compared with 195 plans evaluated virtually in 2021. There were significant differences in palliative intent (36% vs 22%; P = .002), but not in total time between simulation and the start of treatment (9.2 vs 10.0 days; P = .10). Overall deviations (8.0% in-person vs 2.6% virtual; P = .015) were significantly reduced in virtual peer review. Conclusions Prospective daily peer review of radiation oncology treatment plans can be performed virtually with similar timeliness of patient care compared with in-person peer review. A decrease in deviation rate in the virtual peer review setting will need to be further investigated to determine whether virtual workflow can be considered a standard of care.en-USAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalradiation oncologytreatment planningnonprocedural radiation therapyArticle