ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2025
Evaluating the Impact of Transitioning from Weekly to Daily Peer Review in Radiation Oncology.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 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
purposePeer review is essential for quality assurance (QA) in radiation therapy, addressing the variability among clinicians in defining treatment target volumes. At our institution, weekly peer review meetings (PRMs) were initially conducted on Fridays, but the need for more robust review led to the implementation of PRMs on a daily basis. These daily sessions aim to enhance quality by routinely discussing each radiation therapy plan with a team of radiation oncologists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, the impact of daily PRMs on radiation oncology planning was assessed by analyzing changes suggested during these meetings. Treatment plans for 249 patients were reviewed from April to September 2022. During PRMs, each plan was reviewed and modifications were categorized as no change, minor change, major change, or missing contour, with further stratification by target volumes, treatment field, radiation doses and treatment decisions.
resultsA total of 249 cases were reviewed. The largest proportion of discussed plans comprised head & neck cancers (n= 79, 31.7%), thorax (n=55, 22.1%) followed by brain and pelvis (each n=39, 15.7%). Most of the plans i.e., 190 (76.3%) were based on IMRT/VMAT. PRM changes were suggested in 114 (45.7%) cases, where 78 (31.3%) were minor and 36 (14.5%) were major changes. In most cases the changes were suggested in CTV i.e., 62 (24.9%) while PTV modifications were suggested in 21 (8.4%) of the cases during PRM discussion. Among all, head and neck was the region with most frequent PRM changes, suggestions 53 (57.6%) followed by pelvis 18 (19.5%).
conclusionPeer review is a vital component of quality assurance in radiation oncology, helping to identify and correct potential errors, standardize care, and enhance patient safety. It also promotes multidisciplinary collaboration and serves as a valuable educational tool, ultimately supporting more effective and individualized treatment.
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.