Search

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)