ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
Does a peer review group consensus process for MR-Linac patients affect clinical care? Evaluation of impact and feasibility.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimizing peer review rounds in radiation oncology: a scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Case Report: MR-guided adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for splenic metastases: a case series of technical feasibility and early clinical outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The Value of Radiation Therapists in Online Adaptive Radiotherapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Peer review is an important component of quality assurance in radiotherapy. To our knowledge, there are no studies reporting on the feasibility and outcomes of the peer review process for magnetic resonance (MR) guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) on the MR linear accelerator (MR-Linac) despite the planning complexity involved and its evolving clinical indications. This study aimed to quantify the rate of change in treatment plans post-peer review and the time and resources required. Materials and methods: Fifty-five cases presented at weekly MR-Linac peer review meetings across two centres from 8 June to 21 September 2023 were prospectively collected. Cases were analysed to determine the rate and extent of plan changes based on the Peer Review Audit Tool for radiation oncology (PRAT) developed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). Results: Peer review resulted in changes to 36.4 % of treatment plans (n = 20), with 3.6 % (n = 2) having major changes requiring deferment of treatment. The most frequent changes were to organs at risk (OAR) volumes involving both delineation and increased OAR sparing (16.4 %, n = 9), total dose and fractionation (10.9 %, n = 6) and target volume dose coverage (5.5 %, n = 3). Patients with SBRT plans (39.1 % cf 22.2 %), oligometastatic/oligoprogressive sites (38.1 % cf 30.7 %) and reirradiation cases (41.2 % cf 34.2 %) had higher rates of change. Cases took a mean of 7 min (range 2-15 minutes) to discuss. Conclusion: The high rates of plan changes support the value of peer review in MRgRT. We recommend, where possible that all MRgRT cases, particularly those involving SBRT plans, oligometastatic/oligoprogressive sites, and/or reirradiation, be subject to peer review.
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.