ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2020
100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiologist Involvement in Radiation Oncology Peer Review: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- The illusory correlation between geometrical similarity and physician satisfaction in heart auto-segmentation revealed by a physician-blind test.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Physician Body-Site Expertise and Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Rounds Review.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Validation of a Novel Data-Driven Algorithm to Detect Atypical Prescriptions in Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Large language model-augmented learning for auto-delineation of treatment targets in head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2025Article
- Autodelineation of Treatment Target Volume for Radiation Therapy Using Large Language Model-Aided Multimodal Learning.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Article
- Does a peer review group consensus process for MR-Linac patients affect clinical care? Evaluation of impact and feasibility.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Large Language Model-Augmented Auto-Delineation of Treatment Target Volume in Radiation Therapy.ArXiv · 2024Article
- A single center, inter-observer evaluation of vestibular schwannoma stereotactic radiosurgery and its dosimetric impact.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2024Article
- The quantitative impact of joint peer review with a specialist radiologist in head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: Peer review in radiation oncology is more effective today than 20 years ago.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePeer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session.
resultsOver a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%).
conclusionEveryday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.