Logo image
Back
Pilot study of radiation oncology peer review in low middle income country (LMIC) through cloud-based platform
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Pilot study of radiation oncology peer review in low middle income country (LMIC) through cloud-based platform

Manjinder S. Sidhu, Garima Gokhroo, Suneetha Mulinti, Mangesh B. Pati, Midhun Murali, Vibhor Gupta, Suresh Chaudhari, Kareem Rayn and Sushil Beriwal
Journal of cancer research and therapeutics, v 20(5), pp 1591-1594
Jul 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1697_23
PMID: 39412924
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1697_23View
Published, Version of Record (VoR) Open

Abstract

Low middle-income country peer review Varian cloud-based platform
ABSTRACT Purpose: Peer review is an essential step in clinical quality assurance for radiation therapy. There are very little data on peer reviews from low-middle-income countries (LMIC). With increasing access to advanced technologies in LMIC also, peer review is becoming more important to ensure quality and standard of care. We evaluated cloud-based e-Peer review in our network of cancer centers in India with an aim to study its feasibility and impact on care. Materials and Methods: Four out of 13 cancer centers across India were selected for this pilot study. All team members were trained on the e-Peer review platform before the initiation of the study. A lead dosimetrist from a centralized planning site was selected to share new cases every week. Cases treated with only definitive intent were selected. The link to the cases was sent through an email to reviewing physicians. The following aspects were reviewed for each case. 1) Work up and staging. 2) Treatment intent and prescription. 3) Target contours. 4) Normal organ at risk contours. 5) Dose–volume–histogram (DVH) with clinical goals attached. Cases were marked as “Not Appropriate,” “Appropriate,” “Appropriate with minor finding,” and “Represent with major revisions” as per volume and plan review. Results: Over a period of 3 months, 100 cases underwent peer review before the start of treatment. Median turnover time was 48 (interquartile range: 24-96) hours. The median time for review was 8 min with time to review cases requiring major and minor changes being 12 and 6 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Of all the cases reviewed, no changes, minor changes, and major changes were suggested for 36%, 48%, and 16% of cases, respectively. The most frequent reason for major changes was contouring corrections (15%). Also, 31.3% of major changes underwent recontouring and replanning before initiation of treatment. Conclusion: Peer review was feasible in our setting through this cloud-based peer review system, with median turnover time and time taken for review being 48 h and 8 min, respectively. Like published data from the Western world, peer review led to changes that could impact patient care delivery and outcome. We plan to implement this across the remaining centers in our network.

Metrics

6 Record Views

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Oncology
Logo image