Browsing by Subject "nonprocedural radiation therapy"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Analysis of Virtual Versus In-Person Prospective Peer Review Workflow in a Multisite Academic Radiation Oncology Department
    (Elsevier, 2021-11) McClelland, Shearwood III; Amy Achiko, Flora; Bartlett, Gregory K.; Watson, Gordon A.; Holmes, Jordan A.; Rhome, Ryan M.; DesRosiers, Colleen M.; Hutchins, Karen M.; Shiue, Kevin; Agrawal, Namita; Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine
    Purpose 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.