Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Enhancing value of quality assurance rounds in improving radiotherapy management: a retrospective analysis from King Hussein Cancer Center in Jordan

  • Khader, Jamal K. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center) ;
  • Al-Mousa, Abdelatif M. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center) ;
  • Mohamad, Issa A. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center) ;
  • Abuhijlih, Ramiz A. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center) ;
  • Al-Khatib, Sondos A. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center) ;
  • Alnsour, Anoud Z. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center) ;
  • Asha, Wafa A. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center) ;
  • Ramahi, Shada W. (Department of Biomedical Physics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center) ;
  • Hosni, Ali A. (Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) ;
  • Abuhijla, Fawzi J. (Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center)
  • Received : 2018.10.03
  • Accepted : 2019.02.20
  • Published : 2019.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The quality assurance (QA) chart rounds are multidisciplinary meetings to review radiation therapy (RT) treatment plans. This study focus on describing the changes in RT management based on QA round reviews in a single institution. Materials and Methods: After 9 full years of implementation, a retrospective review of all patients whose charts passed through departmental QA chart rounds from 2007 to 2015. The reviewed cases were presented for RT plan review; subcategorized based on decision in QA rounds into: approved, minor modifications or major modifications. Major modification defined as any substantial change which required patient re-simulation or re-planning prior to commencement of RT. Minor modification included treatment plan changes which didn't necessarily require RT re-planning. Results: Overall 7,149 RT treatment plans for different anatomical sites were reviewed at QA rounds. From these treatment plans, 6,654 (93%) were approved, 144 (2%) required minor modifications, while 351 (5%) required major modifications. Major modification included changes in: selected RT dose (96/351, 27%), target volume definition (127/351, 36%), organs-at-risk contouring (10/351, 3%), dose volume objectives/constraints criteria (90/351, 26%), and intent of treatment (28/351, 8%). The RT plans which required major modification according to the tumor subtype were as follows: head and neck (104/904, 12%), thoracic (12/199, 6%), gastrointestinal (33/687,5%), skin (5/106, 5%), genitourinary (16/359, 4%), breast (104/2387, 4%), central nervous system (36/846, 4%), sarcoma (11/277, 4%), pediatric (7/251, 3%), lymphoma (10/423, 2%), gynecological tumors (2/359, 1%), and others (11/351, 3%). Conclusion: Multi-disciplinary standardized QA chart rounds provide a comprehensive and an influential method on RT plans and/or treatment decisions.

Keywords

References

  1. Marks LB, Light KL, Hubbs JL, et al. The impact of advanced technologies on treatment deviations in radiation treatment delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:1579-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.017
  2. Jaradat I, Mula-Hussain L, Wadi-Ramahi S, et al. Practical steps for establishing ocular plaque therapy in developing countries. Brachytherapy 2012;11:230-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2011.12.002
  3. Khader J, Al-Mousa A, Hijla FA, et al. Requirements and implementation of a lung SBRT program in a developing country: benefits of international cooperation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;95:1236-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.03.009
  4. Salem A, Al-Rashdan A, Jaradat I, Hashem SA, Almousa A. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: how safe is safe? Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 2011;4:192. https://doi.org/10.5144/1658-3876.2011.192
  5. World Health Organization. Radiotherapy risk profile technical manual. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;2008.
  6. Taghavi Bayat B, Gill S, Siva S, Tai KH, Joon ML, Foroudi F. Tenyear results of quality assurance in radiotherapy chart round. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:148. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-148
  7. Roques TW. Patient selection and radiotherapy volume definition: can we improve the weakest links in the treatment chain? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2014;26:353-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2014.02.013
  8. Purdy JA. Current ICRU definitions of volumes: limitations and future directions. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004;14:27-40. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semradonc.2003.12.002
  9. Matuszak MM, Hadley SW, Feng M, et al. Enhancing safety and quality through preplanning peer review for patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2016;6:e39-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2015.09.009
  10. Lawrence YR, Whiton MA, Symon Z, et al. Quality assurance peer review chart rounds in 2011: a survey of academic institutions in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:590-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.029
  11. Lefresne S, Olivotto IA, Joe H, Blood PA, Olson RA. Impact of quality assurance rounds in a Canadian radiation therapy department. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:e117-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.10.015
  12. Mackenzie J, Graham G, Olivotto IA. Peer review of radiotherapy planning: quantifying outcomes and a proposal for prospective data collection. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2016;28:e192-e198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2016.08.012
  13. Shikama N, Oguchi M, Isobe K, et al. Quality assurance of radiotherapy in a clinical trial for lymphoma: individual case review. Anticancer Res 2007;27(4C):2621-5.
  14. Ford EC, Terezakis S. How safe is safe? Risk in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;78:321-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.047
  15. Elnahal SM, Blackford A, Smith K, et al. Identifying predictive factors for incident reports in patients receiving radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;94:993-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.041
  16. Rooney KP, McAleese J, Crockett C, et al. The impact of colleague peer review on the radiotherapy treatment planning process in the radical treatment of lung cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2015;27:514-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2015.05.010
  17. Lymberiou T, Galuszka S, Lee G, et al. Predictors of breast radiotherapy plan modifications: quality assurance rounds in a large cancer centre. Radiother Oncol 2015;114:17-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.042
  18. Marks LB, Adams RD, Pawlicki T, et al. Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: executive summary. Pract Radiat Oncol 2013;3:149-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2012.11.010