Original Investigation|Articles in Press

Bridging the Communication Gaps: A Prospective Single-Arm Pilot Study Testing the Feasibility of Interdisciplinary Radiotherapy Planning in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer

Published:February 07, 2023DOI:

      Rationale and Objectives

      The treatment of locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) with radiotherapy (RT) can be challenging. Multidisciplinary collaboration between radiologists and radiation oncologists (ROs) may optimize RT planning, reduce uncertainty in follow-up imaging interpretation, and improve outcomes.

      Materials and Methods

      In this prospective clinical treatment trial ( NCT04844736), 37 patients receiving definitive RT for LALC, six attending ROs, and three thoracic radiologists were consented and enrolled across four treatment centers. Prior to RT plan finalization, representative computed tomography (CT) slices with overlaid outlines of preliminary irradiation targets were shared with the team of radiologists. The primary endpoint was to assess feasibility of receiving feedback no later than 4 business days of RT simulation on at least 50% of plans.


      Thirty-seven patients with lung cancer were enrolled, and 35 of 37 RT plans were reviewed. Of the 35 patients reviewed, mean age was 69 years. For 27 of 37 plans (73%), feedback was received within 4 or fewer days (interquartile range 3–4 days). Thirteen of 35 cases (37%) received feedback that the delineated target potentially did not include all sites suspicious for tumor involvement. In total, changes to the RT plan were recommended for over- or undercoverage in 16 of 35 cases (46%) and implemented in all cases. Radiology review resulted in no treatment delays and substantial changes to irradiated volumes: gross tumor volume, −1.9 to +96.1%; planning target volume, −37.5 to +116.5%.


      Interdisciplinary collaborative RT planning using a simplified workflow was feasible, produced no treatment delays, and prompted substantial changes in RT targets.

      Key Words


      CTV (clinical target volume), GTV (gross tumor volume), IQR (interquartile range), LALC (locally advanced lung cancer), PDF (portable document format), PTV (planning target volume), ROs (radiation oncologists), RT (radiotherapy)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Marks LB
        • Adams RD
        • Pawlicki T
        • et al.
        Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: executive summary.
        Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013; 3: 149-156
        • Lawrence YR
        • Whiton MA
        • Symon Z
        • et al.
        Quality assurance peer review chart rounds in 2011: a survey of academic institutions in the United States.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 590-595
        • Brunskill K
        • Nguyen TK
        • Boldt RG
        • et al.
        Does peer review of radiation plans affect clinical care? A systematic review of the literature.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 97: 27-34
        • Talcott WJ
        • Lincoln H
        • Kelly JR
        • et al.
        A blinded, prospective study of error detection during physician chart rounds in radiation oncology.
        Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020; 10: 312-320
        • Hughes RT
        • Tye KE
        • Ververs JD
        • et al.
        Virtual radiation oncology peer review is associated with decreased engagement and limited case discussion: analysis of a prospective database before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022; 113: 727-731
        • Matalon SA
        • Howard SA
        • Abrams MJ.
        Assessment of radiology training during radiation oncology residency.
        J Cancer Educ. 2019; 34: 691-695
        • Dimigen M
        • Vinod SK
        • Lim K.
        Incorporating a radiologist in a radiation oncology department: a new model of care?.
        Clin Oncol. 2014; 26: 630-635
        • Schaub SK
        • Ermoian RP
        • Wang CL
        • et al.
        Bridging the radiation oncology and diagnostic radiology communication gap: a survey to determine usefulness and optimal presentation of radiotherapy treatment plans for radiologists.
        Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019; 49: 161-167
        • Hutten RJ
        • Nelson G
        • Sarkar V
        • et al.
        Feasibility and clinical utility of a workflow interfacing radiation oncology lung stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment planning and diagnostic radiology.
        Pract Radiat Oncol. 2022; 12: e512-e516
        • Savjani RR
        • Salamon N
        • Deng J
        • et al.
        A framework for sharing radiation dose distribution maps in the electronic medical record for improving multidisciplinary patient management.
        Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2021; 3e200075
        • Khandelwal SR
        • Scarboro SB.
        Giving radiologists and other clinicians the tools to identify radiation effects on imaging studies.
        Radiology. 2021; 3e210001
        • Chowdhry VK
        • Daniel Z
        • Hackett R.
        Departmental quality initiative to establish turnaround times from simulation to treatment.
        Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2021; 19: 37-40
        • Brady AP.
        Radiology reporting—from Hemingway to HAL?.
        Insights Imaging. 2018; 9: 237-246
        • Reiner BI.
        Strategies for radiology reporting and communication.
        J Digit Imaging. 2013; 26: 838-842
        • Schwartz LH
        • Panicek DM
        • Berk AR
        • Li Y
        • Hricak H.
        Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting.
        Radiology. 2011; 260: 174-181
        • Vinod SK
        • Min M
        • Jameson MG
        • et al.
        A review of interventions to reduce inter-observer variability in volume delineation in radiation oncology.
        J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016; 60: 393-406
        • Schimek-Jasch T
        • Troost EGC
        • Rücker G
        • et al.
        A teaching intervention in a contouring dummy run improved target volume delineation in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: reducing the interobserver variability in multicentre clinical studies.
        Strahlenther Onkol. 2015; 191: 525-533
        • Boellaard R
        • Delgado-Bolton R
        • Oyen WJG
        • et al.
        FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0.
        Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42: 328-354
        • Spoelstra FOB
        • Senan S
        • Le Péchoux C
        • et al.
        Variations in target volume definition for postoperative radiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of an international contouring study.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 76: 1106-1113
        • Giraud P
        • Elles S
        • Helfre S
        • et al.
        Conformal radiotherapy for lung cancer: different delineation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) by radiologists and radiation oncologists.
        Radiother Oncol. 2002; 62: 27-36
        • Kallianos KG
        • Muhoozi BN
        • Gottschalk A
        • et al.
        Dedicated diagnostic radiology/radiation oncology rounds: added value beyond traditional tumor boards.
        Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2020; 49: 248-253
        • Kumar S
        • Holloway L
        • Roach D
        • et al.
        The impact of a radiologist-led workshop on MRI target volume delineation for radiotherapy.
        J Med Radiat Sci. 2018; 65: 300-310