Abstract |
PURPOSE: Morbidity and mortality review (MMR) meetings in Radiotherapy (RT) departments aim to monitor radiation-induced toxicities and identify potential factors that may be correlated with their development and severity, particularly treatment planning errors. The aim of the PROUST Survey was to make an inventory of existing MMR procedures and to describe their procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The link to the web-questionnaire of the PROUST survey was sent to 351 radiation oncologists working in 172 centers. The questionnaire included items of organization, frequency, membership, governance, reasons for non-implementation of MMR and interest in its creation.
RESULTS: As of July 2017, we had received 108 responses from the 172 centers, 107 of which were completed for analyses. All centers declared that they had initiated a quality assurance program in the department, including implementation of feedback committees (FBC) dedicated to the registration, analysis and correction of precursor events. Less than half the centers (47%) had implemented MMR procedures. However, there was significant confusion with FBC in the large majority of them. MMR were organized every six and 12 months in 21% and 15% of the centers, respectively. In 60% of the centers, toxicity >/= grade 3 was the main reason for the MMR initiation. In routine practice, contouring and dosimetry files were reviewed by 66% and 83% of centers practicing MMR, respectively. However, only 40% enrolled the data in a registry dedicated to the surveillance. Finally, 78% expressed interest in initiating a consensual procedure.
CONCLUSION: MMRs are not systematically implemented in the worldwide RT departments. In xxxxxx and Europe, few departments with quality assurance programs have implemented MMRs. This survey showed that a large majority of the centers are interested in implementing an MMR with a formalized procedure. Our project could help to increase interest of the worldwide RT community in this topic. |