Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38292763›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiotherapy in practice2023

Head and neck radiotherapy quality assurance conference for dedicated review of delineated targets and organs at risk: results of a prospective study.

J C Farris, N B Razavian, M K Farris, J D Ververs, B A Frizzell, C M Leyrer, L F Allen, K M Greven, R T Hughes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiotherapy in practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

J C FarrisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6797-5529
N B RazavianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
M K FarrisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
J D VerversDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
B A FrizzellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
C M LeyrerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
L F AllenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
K M GrevenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
R T HughesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1548-9753

Funding

Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001420 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ARD, JAMY D, FOLEY, KRISTIE L · 2015 to 2023
$32.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Head and neck (HN) radiotherapy (RT) is complex, involving multiple target and organ at risk (OAR) structures delineated by the radiation oncologist. Site-agnostic peer review after RT plan completion is often inadequate for thorough review of these structures. In-depth review of RT contours is critical to maintain high-quality RT and optimal patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: In August 2020, the HN RT Quality Assurance Conference, a weekly teleconference that included at least one radiation oncology HN specialist, was activated at our institution. Targets and OARs were reviewed in detail prior to RT plan creation. A parallel implementation study recorded patient factors and outcomes of these reviews. A major change was any modification to the high-dose planning target volume (PTV) or the prescription dose/fractionation; a minor change was modification to the intermediate-dose PTV, low-dose PTV, or any OAR. We analysed the results of consecutive RT contour review in the first 20 months since its initiation. Results: A total of 208 patients treated by 8 providers were reviewed: 86·5% from the primary tertiary care hospital and 13·5% from regional practices. A major change was recommended in 14·4% and implemented in 25 of 30 cases (83·3%). A minor change was recommended in 17·3% and implemented in 32 of 36 cases (88·9%). A survey of participants found that all ( Conclusion: Dedicated review of RT targets/OARs with a HN subspecialist is associated with substantial rates of suggested and implemented modifications to the contours.

Indexed as

chart roundshead and neckpeer reviewquality assuranceradiationradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38292763
PMCPMC10827337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.