Impact of Multiprofessional Radiotherapy Peer Review on Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Staging in Head and Neck Cancer.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Clinical oncology Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2024.103696
K Chiu, A Gupta, T Afxentiou, A Ashraf, R Kanani, K Rajaguru, N Bhatt, P Hoskin, S Ghoshray
{"title":"Impact of Multiprofessional Radiotherapy Peer Review on Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Staging in Head and Neck Cancer.","authors":"K Chiu, A Gupta, T Afxentiou, A Ashraf, R Kanani, K Rajaguru, N Bhatt, P Hoskin, S Ghoshray","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2024.103696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Cancer staging is routinely done in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM). There is however no established quality assurance (QA) for MDM-recorded cancer staging. Conversely, radiotherapy peer review is a recommended QA process. This study aimed to compare the cancer staging of the multiprofessional radiotherapy peer review (with radiologists) against the referring MDMs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All head and neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) cases discussed in peer review between May 2023 to April 2024 were prospectively evaluated. Any radiological disease progression (PD) on IMRT-planning scan since the diagnostic scans, and patients' cancer staging, were prospectively recorded. These were compared with the MDM-recorded outcomes data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 235 IMRT cases were peer-reviewed: 166 definitive, 63 post-operative and 6 palliatives. Of the analysable definitive cases, 44/150 (29%) were found to have PD, with a mean interval from diagnostic to IMRT-planning scan of 51 days (Standard Deviation SD = 25), compared to 38 days (SD = 21) in the cohort without PD (p < 0.01). After the exclusion of 28 patients with the most advanced non-metastatic stage, 35 (30%) were upstaged with a mean interval from diagnostic to IMRT-planning of 49 days (SD = 26), compared to 39 days (SD = 23) in the cohort without upstage (p = 0.05). Twenty (57%) upstaged patients had evidence of PD, while the other 15 (43%) were upstaged despite the absence of PD. Two MDM-recorded T3-category larynx cancers were subsequently recommended for a primary laryngectomy due to T4a-category at peer review, and both were proven T4a pathologically. Three upstaged patients were recommended concomitant chemotherapy. The peer review recommended IMRT volume changes to 156 (66%) patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Discrepancies in MDM staging can occur, and a protracted diagnosis and treatment pathway too can affect final cancer staging. Routine radiologist input in peer review can provide crucial post-MDM outcome assurance and the recommended clinical management.</p>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":"103696"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2024.103696","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Cancer staging is routinely done in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM). There is however no established quality assurance (QA) for MDM-recorded cancer staging. Conversely, radiotherapy peer review is a recommended QA process. This study aimed to compare the cancer staging of the multiprofessional radiotherapy peer review (with radiologists) against the referring MDMs.

Materials and methods: All head and neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) cases discussed in peer review between May 2023 to April 2024 were prospectively evaluated. Any radiological disease progression (PD) on IMRT-planning scan since the diagnostic scans, and patients' cancer staging, were prospectively recorded. These were compared with the MDM-recorded outcomes data.

Results: A total of 235 IMRT cases were peer-reviewed: 166 definitive, 63 post-operative and 6 palliatives. Of the analysable definitive cases, 44/150 (29%) were found to have PD, with a mean interval from diagnostic to IMRT-planning scan of 51 days (Standard Deviation SD = 25), compared to 38 days (SD = 21) in the cohort without PD (p < 0.01). After the exclusion of 28 patients with the most advanced non-metastatic stage, 35 (30%) were upstaged with a mean interval from diagnostic to IMRT-planning of 49 days (SD = 26), compared to 39 days (SD = 23) in the cohort without upstage (p = 0.05). Twenty (57%) upstaged patients had evidence of PD, while the other 15 (43%) were upstaged despite the absence of PD. Two MDM-recorded T3-category larynx cancers were subsequently recommended for a primary laryngectomy due to T4a-category at peer review, and both were proven T4a pathologically. Three upstaged patients were recommended concomitant chemotherapy. The peer review recommended IMRT volume changes to 156 (66%) patients.

Conclusion: Discrepancies in MDM staging can occur, and a protracted diagnosis and treatment pathway too can affect final cancer staging. Routine radiologist input in peer review can provide crucial post-MDM outcome assurance and the recommended clinical management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多专业放疗同行评议对头颈部肿瘤多学科小组会议分期的影响。
目的:癌症分期通常在多学科团队会议(MDM)中完成。然而,对于mdm记录的癌症分期,没有既定的质量保证(QA)。相反,放疗同行评议是推荐的QA过程。本研究旨在比较多专业放射治疗同行评审(与放射科医生)与参考MDMs的癌症分期。材料与方法:对2023年5月至2024年4月同行评议的所有头颈部调强放疗(IMRT)病例进行前瞻性评价。自诊断性扫描以来,任何imrt计划扫描的放射学疾病进展(PD)和患者的癌症分期均被前瞻性记录。将这些数据与mdm记录的结果数据进行比较。结果:共235例IMRT经同行评议:166例确诊,63例术后,6例姑息治疗。在可分析的确诊病例中,44/150(29%)被发现患有PD,从诊断到imrt计划扫描的平均间隔时间为51天(标准差SD = 25),而无PD的队列为38天(SD = 21) (p < 0.01)。在排除28例最晚期非转移期患者后,35例(30%)被抢镜,从诊断到imrt计划的平均间隔为49天(SD = 26),而未抢镜的队列为39天(SD = 23) (p = 0.05)。20例(57%)被抢风头的患者有帕金森病的证据,而另外15例(43%)在没有帕金森病的情况下被抢风头。在同行评议中,两例mdm记录的t3型喉癌因T4a型被推荐行原发性喉癌切除术,病理证实均为T4a型。三名抢风头的患者被推荐联合化疗。同行评议建议156例(66%)患者改变IMRT量。结论:MDM分期可能存在差异,长期的诊断和治疗途径也会影响最终的肿瘤分期。放射科医生在同行评审中的常规输入可以提供关键的mdm后结果保证和推荐的临床管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical oncology
Clinical oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
332
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Under-representation for Female Pelvis Cancers in Commercial Auto-segmentation Solutions and Open-source Imaging Datasets. Correspondence to the Editor: Reirradiation in Paediatric Tumors of the Central Nervous System: Outcome and Side Effects After Implementing National Guidelines. Comparing the Robustness of Intensity-modulated Proton Therapy and Proton-arc Therapy Against Interplay Effects of 4D Robust-optimised Plans for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy. OncoFlash: Research Updates in a Flash! REMIT: Reirradiation of Diffuse Midline Glioma Patients -A Nordic Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology Feasibility Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1