Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2026 article

55 Radiotherapy Peer Review in Neuro-Oncology: National Survey of Practice, Barriers and AI Integration

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
7Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Introduction In neuro-oncology, radiotherapy peer review is central to quality assurance, due to anatomical complexity and proximity to critical structures. However, current UK practice is not well described. Method An online survey was designed by the Tessa Jowell Academy Peer Review Working Group and distributed nationally (October–December 2025). Survey questions covered peer review structure, scope, multidisciplinary involvement, artificial intelligence (AI) use, and perceived impact. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics at both institutional- and practitioner-level. Results Seventy-two clinicians from 38 hospitals responded, representing 29 out of 30 UK neuro-oncology networks and one in the Republic of Ireland. Most respondents were oncologists (60/72, 83%), and 34/72 (47%) had practised >10 years. Structure Most hospitals (30/38, 79%) peer reviewed all cases and held weekly meetings (29/38, 76%); however, 27/72 (38%) reported insufficient protected time for peer review and 2/38 (5%) did not peer review. Scope and practice Most reviewed contours only (28/38, 74%), while 7/38 (18%) reviewed both contours and final plans. Minor changes occurred in > 25% cases in 12 centres; major changes were rarer. MDT involvement Multidisciplinary involvement varied, radiographers participated in 16/38 centres (42%), physicists in 12/38 (32%), and neuroradiologists in 10/38 (26%). Use of AI AI-based auto-contouring was used by 51/72 (71%) respondents with 60% of AI users describing mixed or negative experiences, particularly with complex neuroanatomy. Perception Most respondents (67/72, 93%) viewed peer review positively. Key challenges reported were resource-related, particularly lack of protected time. Suggested improvements included dedicated job-planned time, increased multidisciplinary input, and regional collaboration. Conclusions Peer review is widely embedded in UK neuro-oncology and valued but remains heterogeneous and resource-constrained. As AI integration expands, strengthened workforce support and governance are essential to retain quality.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
55 Radiotherapy Peer Review in Neuro-Oncology: National Survey of Practice, Barriers and AI Integration
Date Crossref
27/08/2026
Éditeur
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Advances in Oncology and RadiotherapyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.