ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
A dedicated institutional clinical workflow and peer-review meeting for reirradiation.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Reirradiation (reRT) is a clinical challenge and requires organisational and technical efforts to standardise and ensure safety of practices. An institutional clinical workflow developed to manage and support systematic approach for patients' reRT was presented in this work. Materials and Methods: The workflow included a standardised approach for reRT detection and identification in patient folder in the oncology information system, previous treatment data collection, pre-treatment planning analysis of overlaps and acceptable cumulative radiobiological equieffective doses (EQD2Gy) to organs at risk, a final validation of new treatment plan using image registration and EQD2Gy dose accumulation, and a multidisciplinary peer review meeting. Statistics were compiled on reRT activity at our institution between 2020 and 2023 and the reRT peer-review meeting and the workflow were assessed through a survey addressed to young radiation oncologists (RO). Results: During the studied period, 1920 treatments were declared as reRT at our institution. The first reRT site was the brain, followed by spine, thorax and breast. The most commonly used techniques for reRT were stereotactic radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy. The youngRO survey showed that more than 80% of respondents found a benefit of peer-review meeting, with a particular interest in discussions on cumulative equieffective dose limits and cumulative doses validation. The majority of them declared they gained confidence in their reRT practice. Conclusions: The implementation of a standardized institutional workflow for reRT management helped harmonize practices within our institution to support our reRT workload. Feedback from young RO highlighted the value of peer-review meetings which contributed to increase their confidence in reRT practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.