ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022
The quantitative impact of joint peer review with a specialist radiologist in head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiologist Involvement in Radiation Oncology Peer Review: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Combining radiological and radiation oncology expertise in the delineation of hypopharyngeal tumours: potential effects on treatment volumes and patterns of failure.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Enhanced head and neck radiotherapy target definition through multidisciplinary delineation and peer review: A prospective single-center study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Feasibility and flexibility of a novel multi-dose level avoidance reirradiation technical methodology in recurrent head and neck cancer.BJR case reports · 2024Article
- Nasopharyngeal cancer: the impact of guidelines and teaching on radiation target volume delineation.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- The Impact of Interactive MRI-Based Radiologist Review on Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation in Head and Neck Cancer.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRadiologist input in peer review of head and neck radiotherapy has been introduced as a routine departmental approach. The aim was to evaluate this practice and to quantitatively analyse the changes made.
methodsPatients treated with radical-dose radiotherapy between August and November 2020 were reviewed. The incidence of major and minor changes, as defined by The Royal College of Radiologists guidance, was prospectively recorded. The amended radiotherapy volumes were compared with the original volumes using Jaccard Index (JI) to assess conformity; Geographical Miss Index (GMI) for undercontouring; and Hausdorff Distance (HD) between the volumes.
resultsIn total, 73 out of 87 (84%) patients were discussed. Changes were recommended in 38 (52%) patients: 30 had ≥1 major change, eight had minor changes only. There were 99 amended volumes: The overall median JI, GMI and HD was 0.91 (interquartile range [IQR]=0.80-0.97), 0.06 (IQR = 0.02-0.18) and 0.42 cm (IQR = 0.20-1.17 cm), respectively. The nodal gross-tumour-volume (GTVn) and therapeutic high-dose nodal clinical-target-volume (CTVn) had the biggest magnitude of changes: The median JI, GMI and HD of GTVn was 0.89 (IQR = 0.44-0.95), 0.11 (IQR = 0.05-0.51), 3.71 cm (IQR = 0.31-6.93 cm); high-dose CTVn was 0.78 (IQR = 0.59-0.90), 0.20 (IQR = 0.07-0.31) and 3.28 cm (IQR = 1.22-6.18 cm), respectively. There was no observed difference in the quantitative indices of the 85 'major' and 14 'minor' volumes (
conclusionsRoutine head and neck radiologist input in radiotherapy peer review is feasible and can help avoid gross error in contouring. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The major and minor classifications may benefit from differentiation with quantitative indices but requires correlation from clinical outcomes.
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.