ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S2199

Interdisciplinary – Education in radiation oncology

ESTRO 2025

4082

Digital Poster compliance to peer review recommendations as a quality improvement indicator in radiation oncology practice . Heba Abdallah Gomaa 1 , Maha Alidrisi 1 , Ahmad Habashi 2 , Tagreed AL-alawi 2 , Omar Kalantan 2 , Nisreen Shorbaji 2 , Elham Rashaidi 2 , Saba Khan 1 , Salem Ahmad 1 , Gayur Ali 1 , Mohammed Al-Maghrabi 1 , Khalid Alsalman 1 1 Radiation Oncology, King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. 2 Medical Physics, King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, Saudi Arabia Purpose/Objective: Peer review process in radiation oncology plays an important role in quality assurance (QA) of radiotherapy plans. This process should be well constructed to prevent any treatment inadequancies and considered as a third eye at many centers.We conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze the compliance rate to our weekly peer review recommendations in efforts to integrate it as a new key performance indicator in the QA program at our institution. Material/Methods: From January to December 2023, we collected the peer review recommendations for all curative-intent radiotherapy plans discussed in our weekly departmental peer review meeting through integration of clinical and treatment planning data and discussion of the final treatment plan. Then the assigned radiation therapist tracked all documented responses from treating physicians in our system then presented it to the quality assurance committee aiming to assess the compliance rate to our peer review process recommendations. Results: We discussed radiotherapy plans for 506 patients. 475 (93.9%) of these plans were approved without any recommendation, 28 (5.5%) were approved with recommendations, and only three cases (0.6%) were not allowed to start treatment due to major deviation from the standard treatment practice. The compliance rate to the suggested recommendations was significantly improved during the fourth quarter compared to the first quarter of the year (90% versus 50% respectively) (P value < 0.001). Conclusion: Compliance to peer review practice in radiation oncology is feasible and tracking of it will help to identify reasons of noncompliance by reinforcing decision documentation. We recommend its routine use as a key performance and quality improvement indicator in radiation oncology departments and can be considered as an efficient tool of radiotherapy QA program to detect any deviation from standard treatment practices and also to give a room for constructive debates in gray zone clinical situations where evidence-based practice still not clear. Further studies are needed to analyze its impact on patient outcomes. References: 1. The Linux Information Project: Peer review definition.2005.http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html. 2. Levitt SH & Khan F: Quality assurance in radiation oncology. Cancer 74:2642-2646, 1994. 3. Qureshi MB et al: Impact of Peer Review in the Radiation Treatment Planning Process: Experience of a Tertiary Care University Hospital in Pakistan. Journal of global oncology.2019. https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.19.00039. 4. Cox WB et al, Prospective Peer Review in Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning: Long-Term Results from a Longitudinal Study. Practical Radiation Oncology: 1879-8500.2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2019.10.008. Keywords: Compliance, Peer review, Radiation oncology