BackgroundPeer review systems within radiation oncology are important to ensure quality radiation care. Several individualized methods for radiation oncology peer review have been described. However, despite the importance of peer review in radiation oncology barriers may exist to its effective implementation in practice. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of plan changes based on our group peer review process as well as the quantify amount of time and resources needed for this process.MethodsData on cases presented in our institutional group consensus peer review conference were prospectively collected. Cases were then retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of major change (plan rejection) and any change in plans after presentation as well as the median time of presentation. Univariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with major change and any change.ResultsThere were 73 cases reviewed over a period of 11 weeks. The rate of major change was 8.2% and the rate of any change was 23.3%. The majority of plans (53.4%) were presented in 6–10 min. Overall, the mean time of presentation was 8 min. On univariable logistic regression, volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were less likely to undergo a plan change but otherwise there were no factors significantly associated with major plan change or any type of change.ConclusionGroup consensus peer review allows for a large amount of informative clinical and technical data to be presented per case prior to the initiation of radiation treatment in a thorough yet efficient manner to ensure plan quality and patient safety.

BackgroundPeer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers.MethodsPeer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously.ResultsThough peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic.ConclusionA Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.

Purpose: Benign tumors that arise from the meninges can be difficult to treat due to their potentially large size and proximity to critical structures such as cranial nerves and sinuses. Single fraction radiosurgery may increase the risk of symptomatic peritumoral edema. In this study, we report our results on the efficacy and safety of five fraction image-guided radiosurgery for benign meningiomas.Materials/Methods: Clinical and radiographic data from 38 patients treated with five fraction radiosurgery were reviewed retrospectively. Mean tumor volume was 3.83 mm3 (range, 1.08–20.79 mm3). Radiation was delivered using the CyberKnife, a frameless robotic image-guided radiosurgery system with a median total dose of 25 Gy (range, 25–35 Gy).Results: The median follow-up was 20 months. Acute toxicity was minimal with eight patients (21%) requiring a short course of steroids for headache at the end of treatment. Pre-treatment neurological symptoms were present in 24 patients (63.2%). Post treatment, neurological symptoms resolved completely in 14 patients (58.3%), and were persistent in eight patients (33.3%). There were no local failures, 24 tumors remained stable (64%) and 14 regressed (36%). Pre-treatment peritumoral edema was observed in five patients (13.2%). Post-treatment asymptomatic peritumoral edema developed in five additional patients (13.2%). On multivariate analysis, pre-treatment peritumoral edema and location adjacent to a large vein were significant risk factors for radiographic post-treatment edema (p = 0.001 and p = 0.026 respectively).Conclusion: These results suggest that five fraction image-guided radiosurgery is well tolerated with a response rate for neurologic symptoms that is similar to other standard treatment options. Rates of peritumoral edema and new cranial nerve deficits following five fraction radiosurgery were low. Longer follow-up is required to validate the safety and long-term effectiveness of this treatment approach.