Analysis of Retrospective Versus Prospective Peer Review in a Multisite Academic Radiation Department

Abstract

Purpose: Our multisite academic radiation department reviewed our experience with transitioning from weekly primarily retrospective to daily primarily prospective peer review to improve plan quality and decrease the rate of plan revisions after treatment start. Methods and materials: This study was an institutional review board-approved prospective comparison of radiation treatment plan review outcomes of plans reviewed weekly (majority within 1 week after treatment start) versus plans reviewed daily (majority before treatment start, except brachytherapy, frame-based radiosurgery, and some emergent plans). Deviations were based on peer comments and considered major if plan revisions were recommended before the next fraction and minor if modifications were suggested but not required. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 distribution tests of independence; means were compared using independent t tests. Results: In all, 798 patients with 1124 plans were reviewed: 611 plans weekly and 513 plans daily. Overall, 76 deviations (6.8%) were noted. Rates of any deviation were increased in the daily era (8.6% vs 5.2%; P = .026), with higher rates of major deviations in the daily era (4.1% vs 1.6%; P = .012). Median working days between initial simulation and treatment was the same across eras (8 days). Deviations led to a plan revision at a higher rate in the daily era (84.1% vs 31.3%; P < .001). Conclusions: Daily prospective peer review is feasible in a multisite academic setting. Daily peer review with emphasis on prospective plan evaluation increased constructive plan feedback, plan revisions, and plan revisions being implemented before treatment start.