Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Dec 2;7(12):e2452667.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52667.

Radiologist Involvement in Radiation Oncology Peer Review: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ryan T Hughes  1 , Niema B Razavian  1 , Sydney Smith  2 , Ralph B D'Agostino Jr  2 , Paul M Bunch  3 , Janardhana Ponnatapura  3 , Trevor J Royce  1 , James D Ververs  1 , Chandylen L Nightingale  4 , Kathryn E Weaver  4 , Michael K Farris  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Radiologist Involvement in Radiation Oncology Peer Review: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ryan T Hughes et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Radiotherapy (RT) plan quality is an established predictive factor associated with cancer recurrence and survival outcomes. The addition of radiologists to the peer review (PR) process may increase RT plan quality.

Objective: To determine the rate of changes to the RT plan with and without radiology involvement in PR of radiation targets.

Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were queried for peer-reviewed articles published from inception up to March 6, 2024. Search terms included key words associated with PR of contoured targets for the purposes of RT planning with or without radiology involvement.

Study selection: Studies reporting PR of contoured radiation targets with or without radiology involvement. Studies were excluded if they lacked full text, reported clinical trial-specific quality assurance, or reported PR without dedicated review of RT targets.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Titles and abstracts were screened by 2 reviewers. In the case of discordance, discussion was used to reach consensus regarding inclusion for full-text review. RT plan changes were characterized as major when the change was expected to have a substantial clinical impact, as defined by the original study. Pooled outcomes were estimated using random-effects models.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome was pooled rate of RT plan changes. Secondary outcomes included pooled rates of major and minor changes to RT targets or organs at risk.

Results: Of 4185 screened studies, 31 reporting 39 509 RT plans were included (390 with radiology and 39 119 without). The pooled rate of plan changes was 29.0% (95% CI, 20.7%-37.2%). Radiologist participation in PR was associated with significant increases in plan change rates (49.4% [95% CI, 28.6%-70.1%] vs 25.0% [95% CI, 17.0%-33.1%]; P = .02) and in clinically relevant major changes (47.0% [95% CI, 34.1%-59.8%] vs 10.2% [95% CI, 4.6%-15.8%]; P < .001). There was no difference in minor changes (15.2% [95% CI, 9.7%-20.6%] vs 13.8% [95% CI, 9.3%-18.3%]; P = .74). Subgroup analyses identified increases in the rates of changes to the gross tumor and planning target volumes with radiology-based PR. The highest rates of plan changes were observed in head and neck or lung cancer studies, studies performing PR prior to RT planning, and prospective studies.

Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of radiation oncology PR of contoured targets, radiologist involvement in peer review was associated with a significant increase in the rate of total and clinically meaningful changes to the RT targets with no change in minor change rates. These results support the value of interdisciplinary collaboration with radiology during RT planning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bunch reported receiving personal fees from Guerbet outside the submitted work. Dr Weaver reported receiving grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Forest Plot and Pooled Rates of Any Plan Changes by Radiology Involvement in Radiotherapy Peer Review
Vertical line indicates the pooled rate for all studies. Light blue diamonds represent pooled rates and 95% CIs. RE indicates random effects. aSubgroup reviewed without radiologist. bSubgroup reviewed with radiologist.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Forest Plot and Pooled Rates of Major Changes to the Radiotherapy Plan by Radiology Involvement
Studies that did not differentiate changes as major vs minor (n = 7) were excluded from this analysis. Vertical line indicates the pooled rate for all studies. Tan shaded areas indicate that the lower confidence bound crosses 0; light blue diamonds represent pooled rates and 95% CIs. RE indicates random effects. aSubgroup reviewed without radiologist. bSubgroup reviewed with radiologist.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Forest Plot and Pooled Rates of Minor Changes to the Radiotherapy Plan by Radiology Involvement
Studies that did not differentiate changes as major vs minor (n = 7) were excluded from this analysis. Vertical line indicates the pooled rate for all studies. Light blue diamonds represent pooled rates and 95% CIs. RE indicates random effects. aSubgroup reviewed without radiologist. bSubgroup reviewed with radiologist.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. Forest Plot and Pooled Rates of Changes to the Gross Tumor Volume by Radiology Involvement
Vertical lines indicate the pooled rates for each subgroup. Tan shaded areas indicate that the lower confidence bound crosses 0; light blue diamonds represent pooled rates and 95% CIs. RE indicates random effects. aSubgroup reviewed without radiologist. bSubgroup reviewed with radiologist.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.. Forest Plot and Pooled Rates of Changes to the Planning Target Volume or Treatment Volume by Radiology Involvement
Vertical line indicates the pooled rate for all studies. Light blue diamonds represent pooled rates and 95% CIs. RE indicates random effects. aSubgroup reviewed without radiologist. bSubgroup reviewed with radiologist.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Marks LB, Adams RD, Pawlicki T, et al. . Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: executive summary. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013;3(3):149-156. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2012.11.010 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lawrence YR, Whiton MA, Symon Z, et al. . Quality assurance peer review chart rounds in 2011: a survey of academic institutions in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(3):590-595. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.029 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Martin-Garcia E, Celada-Álvarez F, Pérez-Calatayud MJ, et al. . 100% Peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible? Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22(12):2341-2349. doi:10.1007/s12094-020-02394-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reddeman L, Foxcroft S, Gutierrez E, et al. . Improving the quality of radiation treatment for patients in Ontario: increasing peer review activities on a jurisdictional level using a change management approach. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(1):81-82, e61-e70. doi:10.1200/JOP.2015.006882 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Talcott WJ, Lincoln H, Kelly JR, et al. . A blinded, prospective study of error detection during physician chart rounds in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020;10(5):312-320. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.05.012 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources