ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Physician Body-Site Expertise and Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Rounds Review.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Contouring targets for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) requires expertise for each body site. Likewise, peer reviewers require sufficient expertise to provide an adequate review. In this work, we investigate physician self-reported expertise for performing peer review by body site and how the quality of SBRT peer review is impacted by the expertise of the reviewer. Methods and Materials: The results of 7 years of SBRT rounds, which included information on body site, attending and reviewing physicians, changes to targets, prescriptions, and planning target volume, were analyzed. We surveyed physicians on their expertise for reviewing each body site and defined them as being an expert by body site if they indicated a moderate or high level of competence. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between reviewing physician expertise and planning data changes, and whether this varied by body site or by presenting physician expertise. Models were adjusted for physician and case characteristics, and generalized estimating equations were used to account for the correlation of cases reviewed by the same physician. Results: The survey response rate was 95% (20/21) with 4103 cases for analysis. Reviewing physician experts were more likely to make any change, gross target volume, and prescription compared with reviewing physicians who were nonexperts. Controlling for physician expertise and case characteristics, brain, liver, spine, and stereotactic radiosurgery cases have an increased odds of any change being made when compared to lung cases, with odds ratios of 2.42 (95% CI, 1.78-3.30), 1.55 (95% CI, 1.19-2.01), 1.7 (95% CI, 1.31-2.20), and 2.18 (95% CI, 1.73-2.77), respectively. Conclusions: The extent to which changes are made during contour review is associated with both peer reviewer disease-site expertise and disease site. In larger radiation oncology departments relying on a general coverage model, rather than review by disease-site experts, peer review results in variations in the outcome of the preplanning review.
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.