Full text

Turn on search term navigation

© 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

[...]discussion of controversies or changes in practice within radiation oncology must involve input from all three disciplines. OPENING STATEMENTS 3.A Lakshmi Santanam, PhD; Abhishek Solanki, MD; Anis Ahmad, PhD (FOR) Peer review is a critical component of a radiation oncology quality management program. 4,5 A keyword search in Google for “Peer review in Radiation Oncology” now yields close to 31 400 results, compared to 6240 results from 1980 to 2000, which highlights the importance this topic has gained in the last 20 yr. With advances in automation, technology, remote review, and cloud computing, engaging multidisciplinary teams via teleconference to review patient contours, radiation treatment plans, and weekly chart rounds is more easily achievable now than in the past. Peer review is more efficient now than it was 20 yr ago when it comes to planning quality, 6 reducing variation in practice, 7 identifying cancer sites with a high proportion of changes, 6 developing or improving treatment planning policies, 7 and promoting multidisciplinary communication and engagement. 8 Although historically there were limited quantitative and qualitative data regarding the impact of peer review, during the past 10 yr there have been numerous studies describing the impact of multidisciplinary chart rounds on radiation treatment plans. Typically thereafter, the target contours, normal structure contours, and treatment plans, are reviewed during the first week of treatment. 10 However, many institutions have evolved their peer review program to conduct peer review before the start of radiotherapy and as early as possible in the treatment planning process. 11–13 There are several benefits to this newer approach to peer review:

Details

Title
Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: Peer review in radiation oncology is more effective today than 20 years ago
Author
Anis, Ahmad 1 ; Santanam, Lakshmi 2 ; Solanki, Abhishek A 3 ; Padilla, Laura 4 ; Vlashi, Erina 5 ; Guerrieri, Patrizia 6 ; Dominello, Michael M 7 ; Burmeister, Jay 8 ; Joiner, Michael C 7 

 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA 
 Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA 
 Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University, Maywood, IL, USA 
 Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA 
 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 
 Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 
 Department of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA 
 Department of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA; Gershenson Radiation Oncology Center, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA 
Pages
7-13
Section
PARALLEL OPPOSED EDITORIAL
Publication year
2020
Publication date
Nov 2020
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
e-ISSN
15269914
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2465268656
Copyright
© 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.