ABSTRACT
Other studies of peer review as a QA tool have been completed. Rosenthal et al. (2006) from the MD Anderson Cancer Center prospectively examined 134 consecutive patients needing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer who had preliminary radiation therapy plans. e study involved clinical peer review by up to four clinicians. is involved head and neck examination and review of the relevant imaging to conrm target localization. e oncologists were essentially blind to the fact that they were being reviewed. Peer review led to changes in treatment plans for 66% of patients. Major changes that may have signicantly aected treatment outcomes in terms of cancer control and/or normal tissue toxicity were recommended in 11% of patients. Most changes involved target delineation based on physical examination ndings. is practice may not be possible for community-based units or in units with resource problems. e authors suggested review of the treatment plans by at least one other specialist head and neck oncologist to ensure treatment success. eir study shows the importance of physical examination in peer review. is shows that it may not be possible to have an eective peer review of head and neck cancer by tele-or video-conferencing, that real-time, “same space” review is preferable to virtual alternatives.
