ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Case Volume and Experience in Stereotactic Radiation: Analysis of a Prospective Peer Review Program.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) is highly effective but carries the risk of significant toxicity. We identified factors associated with SRT plans that require revision in a comprehensive, prospective peer review program conducted across a network of affiliated radiation oncology centers. Methods and Materials: Weekly peer review rounds were conducted to review SRT cases prior to the start of radiation. Revision recommendations were tracked. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with case revision. Results: From 2019 to 2024, 1172 SRT cases were reviewed at weekly rounds, including 313 brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), 190 brain multi-fractionated SRS, and 669 stereotactic body radiation therapy. The yearly revision rate ranged from 19% in 2020 to 31% in 2024. There were 16 individual treating physicians with a median of 6 years of experience (range, 1-19 years), measured at the time of each SRT case review. Factors assessed for significance included SRT case volume in the 3 months preceding review (dichotomized as low- or high-volume), physician experience (≤2, 3-9, or ≥10 years), SRT technique (SRS, multi-fractionated SRS, or stereotactic body radiation therapy, and disease site. On multivariable logistic regression, revisions were less likely for high-volume physicians (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.77), those with 3-9 years of experience (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.96), and SRS technique (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84). Conclusions: These data imply high value to prospective peer review for physicians with low SRT case volume and in their early career. Adequate case volume may be a critical factor for high quality SRT, analogous to the surgical literature. Annual revision rates in the program remained substantial over time, demonstrating the ongoing importance of an effective prospective peer review program for SRT.
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.