A peer review of pediatric radiation therapy planning: results and prospects

Timely identification, analysis, and prevention of potential errors in radiotherapy are crucial for successful comprehensive treatment.

The aim of this study – to establish a system of peer review of radiation therapy plans in pediatric practice prior to treatment initiation in order to avoid possible major errors in treatment planning as well as to assess and improve the quality of radiation therapy, and consequently, treatment outcomes of pediatric patients.

In study established a 42 % utilization rate for radiation therapy in pediatric practice.

Here, we present the results of a peer review of 589 radiation therapy plans in children conducted from 2019 to 2024, with 43.3 % of them requiring corrections. It was demonstrated that the most significant challenge in ensuring the quality of radiation therapy remained target volume delineation: the most common errors were related to target contouring (36.7 %), less frequently to organs-at-risk contouring (2.3 %), and dose prescription (5.4 %). Radiation therapy planning was most difficult in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (55.2 % of errors) and those requiring craniospinal irradiation (39.5 % of errors).

 A peer review of radiation therapy plans resulted in a significant (p < 0.001) reduction of errors: from 51.1 % at first review to 23.6 % after the fourth one. These numbers confirm the educational value of the peer review system and its role in furthering professional development of specialists. A peer review of radiation therapy plans in children is an important tool for improving the quality of treatment and minimizing associated risks.

The results of our study emphasize the importance of continuing and expanding the use of radiotherapy planning so that to ensure high quality care and reduce risks for patients.

1. Baskar R., Lee K.A., Yeo R., Yeoh K.W. Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions. Int J Med Sci. 2012;9(3):193–9. doi: 10.7150/ijms.3635.

2. Peters L.J., O'Sullivan B., Giralt J., Fitzgerald T.J., Trotti A., Bernier J., Bourhis J., Yuen K., Fisher R., Rischin D. Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2996–3001. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.4498.

3. Qureshi B.M., Mansha M.A., Karim M.U., Hafi z A., Ali N., Mirkhan B., Shaukat F., Tariq M., Abbasi A.N. Impact of peer review in the radiation treatment planning process: experience of a Tertiary Care University Hospital in Pakistan. J Glob Oncol. 2019;5:1–7. doi: 10.1200/JGO.19.00039.

4. Brunskill K., Nguyen T.K., Boldt R.G., Louie A.V., Warner A., Marks L.B., Palma D.A. Does peer review of radiation plans aff ect clinical care? a systematic review of the literature. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97(1):27–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.09.015.

5. Gondi V., Cui Y., Mehta M.P., Manfredi D., Xiao Y., Galvin J.M., Rowley H., Tome W.A. Real-time pretreatment review limits unacceptable deviations on a cooperative group radiation therapy technique trial: quality assurance results of RTOG 0933. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(3):564–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.054.

6. Jomy J., Lu R., Sharma R., Lin K.X., Chen D.C., Winter J., Raman S. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of institutional peer review in radiation oncology. Radiother Oncol. 2025;202:110622. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110622.

7. Kelly S.M., Turcas A., Corning C., Bailey S., Cañete A., Clementel E., di Cataldo A., Dieckmann K., Gaze M.N., Horan G., Jenney M., Ladenstein R., Padovani L., Valteau-Couanet D., Boterberg T., Mandeville H. Radiotherapy quality assurance in paediatric clinical trials: fi rst report from six QUARTET-affi liated trials. Radiother Oncol. 2023;182:109549. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109549.

8. Weiss E., Hess C.F. The impact of gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) defi nition on the total accuracy in radiotherapy theoretical aspects and practical experiences. Strahlenther Onkol. 2003;179(11):745–53. doi: 10.1007/s00066-003-1124-y.

9. Mitchell J.D., Chesnut T.J., Eastham D.V., Demandante C.N., Hoopes D.J. Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017;7(1):50–6. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.08.011.

10. Huo M., Gorayski P., Poulsen M., Thompson K., Pinkham M.B. Evidence-based peer review for radiation therapy – updated review of the literature with a focus on tumour subsite and treatment modality. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017;29(10):680–8. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2017.08.002.

11. Montague E., Roques T., Spencer K., Burnett A., Lourenco J., Thorp N. How Long does contouring really take? results of the Royal College of Radiologists Contouring Surveys. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2024;36(6):335–42. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.03.005.

12. Ballo M.T., Chronowski G.M., Schlembach P.J., Bloom E.S., Arzu I.Y., Kuban D.A. Prospective peer review quality assurance for outpatient radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4(5):279–84. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2013.11.004.

13. Joye I., Lambrecht M., Jegou D., Hortobágyi E., Scalliet P., Haustermans K. Does a central review platform improve the quality of radiotherapy for rectal cancer? Results of a national quality assurance project. Radiother Oncol. 2014;111(3):400–5. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.03.003.

14. Jairam V., Roberts K.B., Yu J.B. Historical trends in the use of radiation therapy for pediatric cancers: 1973–2008. Int J Radiat Oncol Boil Phys. 2013;85(3):e151–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.10.007.

15. Bishr M.K., Zaghloul M.S., Elmaraghi C., Galal A., Abdelaziz M.S., Elghazawy H.I., Shaheen H., Ramzy E.S., Mesbah A., Eissa S.K., Hegazy R., Hamza A.M., Elkhateeb N., Mousa A.G. The radiotherapy utilization rate in pediatric tumors: An analysis of 13,305 patients. Radiother Oncol. 2021;154:220–6. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.058.

16. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2018 (morbidity and mortality). Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinsky, A.O. Shakhzadova. M., 2024. (In Russ.)].

17. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children: clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. M., 2024. 278 p. [Electronic resource]: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/view-cr/529_2 (accessed 09.02.2025). (In Russ.)].

18. Hodgkinʼs lymphoma in adults: clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. M., 2024. 141 p. [Electronic resource]: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/view-cr/139_2 (accessed 02.09.2025). (In Russ.)].

19. Ajithkumar T., Horan G., Padovani L., Thorp N., Timmermann B., Alapetite C., Gandola L., Ramos M., Van Beek K., Christiaens M., Lassen-Ramshad Y., Magelssen H., Nilsson K., Saran F., Rombi B., Kortmann R., Janssens G.O.; SIOPE BTG Radiotherapy Group. SIOPE – Brain tumor group consensus guideline on craniospinal target volume delineation for high-precision radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2018;128(2):192–7. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.04.016.

20. Soft tissue sarcomas: clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. M., 2024. 185 p. [Electronic resource]: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/preview-cr/515_3 (accessed 02.09.2025). (In Russ.)].

21. Malignant neoplasms of bones and articular cartilage: osteosarcoma, Ewingʼs sarcoma: clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. M., 2024. 140 p. [Electronic resource]: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/preview-cr/70_2 (accessed 02.09.2025). (In Russ.)].