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

• Published in: British journal of radiology Vol. 97; no. 1155; pp. 680 - 693
• Main Authors: Bhattacharyya, Tapesh, Chakraborty, Santam, Achari, Rimpa Basu, Mallick, Indranil, Arunsingh, Moses, Shenoy, Shashank, Harilal, Vishnu, Phesao, Vezokhoto, Maulik, Shaurav, Manjunath, Nisarga Vontikoppal, Mukherjee, Prattusha, Sarkar, Nivedita, Sinha, Avinaba, Sarkar, Sebanti, Vashistha, Bhanu, Khanum, Hashmath, Chatterjee, Sanjoy
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 28-02-2024
• Subjects: gynaecological cancer; carcinoma vulva; clinical target volume; carcinoma vagina; peer review; quality assurance; carcinoma uterine cervix; carcinoma endometrium
• ISSN: 0007-1285; 1748-880X
• DOI: 10.1093/bjr/tqae019

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.
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.
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.
An on-demand peer review system was feasible and resulted in clinically meaningful, major modifications in the target volumes for 53% of patients.
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.