Search

Purpose: The present consensus statement was developed by the GINECOR working group on behalf of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Given the lack of prospective data on the management of vulvar carcinoma, this document provides an up-to-date review of radiotherapy treatment in vulvar cancer and a series of consensus-based recommendations from a group of experts., Methods: A two-round, online modified Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus treatment recommendations in three clinical settings: 1) adjuvant treatment, 2) locally-advanced vulvar cancer (LAVC), and 3) recurrent disease. After the first round, we comprehensively reviewed the available medical literature from peer-reviewed journals to assess and define the evidence-based treatment options. In the second round, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the preliminary recommendations according to the GRADE (Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria, as follows: strongly agree; agree; neither agree nor disagree; disagree; strongly disagree., Results: The main recommendations were as follows: 1) following surgical resection, adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended with the presence of adverse risk factors (primarily positive margins and lymph node involvement); 2) radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) should be considered in LAVC; and 3) in recurrent disease, radiotherapy should be individualised on a case-by-case basis. A high level of agreement over 80% was reached., Conclusions: In the absence of robust clinical data, these final recommendations may help to select the optimal radiotherapy approach for this relatively rare cancer., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO).)

Today, patient management generally requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, due to the growing knowledge base and increasing complexity of Medicine, clinical practice has become even more specialised. Radiation oncology is not immune to this trend towards subspecialisation, which is particularly evident in ablative radiotherapy techniques that require high dose fractions, such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of the present report is to establish the position of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Medical Physics (SEFM), with regard to the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals involved in performing SRS and SBRT. The need for this white paper is motivated due to the recent changes in Spanish Legislation (Royal Decree [RD] 601/2019, October 18, 2019) governing the use and optimization of radiotherapy and radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation (article 11, points 4 and 5) [1 ], which states: "In radiotherapy treatment units, the specialist in Radiation Oncology will be responsible for determining the correct treatment indication, selecting target volumes, determining the clinical radiation parameters for each volume, directing and supervising treatment, preparing the final clinical report, reporting treatment outcomes, and monitoring the patient's clinical course." Consequently, the SEOR and SEFM have jointly prepared the present document to establish the roles and responsibilities for the specialists-radiation oncologists (RO), medical physicists (MP), and related staff -involved in treatments with ionizing radiation. We believe that it is important to clearly establish the responsibilities of each professional group and to clearly establish the professional competencies at each stage of the radiotherapy process.

Purpose: Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution., Methods and Materials: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session., Results: Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%)., Conclusion: Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.