Peer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers. Peer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously. Though peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic. A Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.

Peer review systems within radiation oncology are important to ensure quality radiation care. Several individualized methods for radiation oncology peer review have been described. However, despite the importance of peer review in radiation oncology barriers may exist to its effective implementation in practice. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of plan changes based on our group peer review process as well as the quantify amount of time and resources needed for this process. Data on cases presented in our institutional group consensus peer review conference were prospectively collected. Cases were then retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of major change (plan rejection) and any change in plans after presentation as well as the median time of presentation. Univariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with major change and any change. There were 73 cases reviewed over a period of 11 weeks. The rate of major change was 8.2% and the rate of any change was 23.3%. The majority of plans (53.4%) were presented in 6–10 min. Overall, the mean time of presentation was 8 min. On univariable logistic regression, volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were less likely to undergo a plan change but otherwise there were no factors significantly associated with major plan change or any type of change. Group consensus peer review allows for a large amount of informative clinical and technical data to be presented per case prior to the initiation of radiation treatment in a thorough yet efficient manner to ensure plan quality and patient safety.

Positron emission tomography (PET) integrated with computed tomography (CT) has brought revolutionary changes in improving cancer care (CC) for patients. These include improved detection of previously unrecognizable disease, ability to identify oligometastatic status enabling more aggressive treatment strategies when the disease burden is lower, its use in better defining treatment targets in radiotherapy (RT), ability to monitor treatment responses early and thus improve the ability for early interventions of non-responding tumors, and as a prognosticating tool as well as outcome predicting tool. PET/CT has enabled the emergence of new concepts such as radiobiotherapy (RBT), radioimmunotherapy, theranostics, and pharmaco-radiotherapy. This is a rapidly evolving field, and this primer is to help summarize the current status and to give an impetus to developing new ideas, clinical trials, and CC outcome improvements.

Objective:To compare high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy systems with 192Ir, 60Co and electronic brachytherapy source (EBS) for treatment of endometrial cancers.Methods:Two additional plans were gen...

Development of MRI sequences and processing methods for the production of images appropriate for direct use in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment planning. MRI is useful in SRS treatment planning, especially for patients with brain lesions or anatomical targets that are poorly distinguished by CT, but its use requires further refinement. This methodology seeks to optimize MRI sequences to generate distortion-free and clinically relevant MR images for MRI-only SRS treatment planning. We used commercially available SRS MRI-guided radiotherapy phantoms and eight patients to optimize sequences for patient imaging. Workflow involved the choice of correct MRI sequence(s), optimization of the sequence parameters, evaluation of image quality (artifact free and clinically relevant), measurement of geometrical distortion, and evaluation of the accuracy of our offline correction algorithm. CT images showed a maximum deviation of 1.3 mm and minimum deviation of 0.4 mm from true fiducial position for SRS coordinate definition. Interestingly, uncorrected MR images showed maximum deviation of 1.2 mm and minimum of 0.4 mm, comparable to CT images used for SRS coordinate definition. After geometrical correction, we observed a maximum deviation of 1.1 mm and minimum deviation of only 0.3 mm. Our optimized MRI pulse sequences and image correction technique show promising results; MR images produced under these conditions are appropriate for direct use in SRS treatment planning.

Objective:To evaluate the dosimetric differences and similarities between treatment plans generated with Axxent-Xoft electronic brachytherapy source (Xoft-EBS), 192Ir and 60Co for tandem and ovoids (T&O) applicators.Methods:In this retrospective study, we replanned 10 patients previously treated with 192Ir high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Prescription was 7 Gy × 4 fractions to Point A. For each original plan, we created two additional plans with Xoft-EBS and 60Co. The dose to each organ at risk (OAR) was evaluated in terms of V35% and V50%, the percentage volume receiving 35% and 50% of the prescription dose, respectively, and D2cc, highest dose to a 2 cm3 volume of an OAR.Results:There was no difference between plans generated by 192Ir and 60Co, but the plans generated using Xoft-EBS showed a reduction of up to 50% in V35%, V50% and D2cc. The volumes of the 200% and 150% isodose lines, however, were 74% and 34% greater than the comparable volumes generated with the 192Ir source. Point B dose was on average ...