Quality and access - Early experience of implementing a virtual stereotactic chart round across a national network.
chart round
dosimetry
peer review
quality
stereotactic
Journal
Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology
ISSN: 1754-9485
Titre abrégé: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101469340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
02
12
2019
revised:
25
02
2020
accepted:
09
03
2020
pubmed:
25
4
2020
medline:
24
3
2021
entrez:
25
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Stereotactic radiation therapy is a highly specialised technique which requires careful and structured implementation. As part of a national stereotactic programme implementation, protocols were developed and a national stereotactic chart round was formed, which strongly recommended attendance and presentation of all cases before treatment. Herein, we describe our experiences launching a national chart round and its importance in a stereotactic programme. Stereotactic chart rounds were held via videoconference between July 2018 and July 2019. Data collected included attendances, patient-related information including, diagnosis, clinical background, treatment intent, prescribed dose and fractionation and technical approach. Consensus recommendations regarding changes to treatment approaches were also recorded. For the 12 months recorded, there were 1126 attendances, from 144 individual attendees, across 21 locations. In total, 285 cases (237 new cases, and 48 re-presentations) were presented by 27 radiation oncologists (ROs) from 13 different locations. From the cases presented, 65 changes were recommended from 53 patients (22.3%), including 27 (11.4%) changes to contours, 18 (7.6%) changes to dose prescription/fractionation, 9 (3.8%) changes to plan dosimetry, 1 (0.4%) changes to treatment technique and 10 (4.2%) recommendations for which stereotactic radiation therapy was not advised. A significant inverse relationship was found between frequency of recommended changes and the individual RO's stereotactic case load (P < 0.002). The implementation of a national stereotactic chart held via videoconference has ensured national protocol compliance across the network of locations. Furthermore, the chart rounds have allowed the entire multidisciplinary team to be provided with mentorship and guidance. Increasing number of cases presented was associated with lower rates of recommended changes highlighting the impact of experience and the need for continued mentorship.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32329199
doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13031
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
422-426Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.
Références
Sahgal A, Roberge D, Schellenberg D et al. The Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology scope of practice guidelines for lung, liver and spine stereotactic body radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012; 24: 629-39.
Foote M, Bailey M, Smith L et al. Guidelines for safe practice of stereotactic body (ablative) radiation therapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2015; 59: 646-53.
Lefresne S, Olivotto IA, Joe H, Blood PA, Olson RA. Impact of quality assurance rounds in a Canadian radiation therapy department. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85: e117-21
Boxer M, Forstner D, Kneebone A et al. Impact of a real-time peer review audit on patient management in a radiation oncology department. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009; 53: 405-11.
Huo M, Gorayski P, Poulsen M, Thompson K, Pinkham MB. Evidence-based peer review for radiation therapy - Updated review of the literature with a focus on tumour subsite and treatment modality. Clin Oncol. 2017; 29: 680-8.
Fairchild A, Straube W, Laurie F, Followill D. Does quality of radiation therapy predict outcomes of multicenter cooperative group trials? A literature review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 87: 246-60.
Weber DC, Tomsej M, Melidis C, Hurkmans CW. QA makes a clinical trial stronger: evidence-based medicine in radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2012; 105: 4-8.
Peters LJ, O'Sullivan B, Giralt J et al. Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:2996-3001.
Reiber J, Abbassi-Semger N, Adebahr S et al. Influence of institutional experience and technological advances on outcome of stereotactic body radiation therapy for oligometastatic lung disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 98: 511-20.
Koshy M, Malik R, Mahmood U, Husain Z, Sher DJ. Stereotactic body radiotherapy and treatment at a high volume facility is associated with improved survival in patients with inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Rad Onc 2015; 114: 148-54.
Matuszak MM, Hadley SW, Feng M et al. Enhancing safety and quality through preplanning peer review for patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016; 6: e39-46.
Lo AC, Liu M, Chan E et al. The impact of peer review of volume delineation in stereotactic body radiation therapy planning for primary lung cancer: a multicenter quality assurance study. J Thorac Oncol 2014; 9: 527-33.
Hardcastle N, Hofman M, Lee CY et al. NaF PET/CT for response assessment of prostate cancer bone metastases treated with single fraction stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14: 164.