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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neuro-Oncology
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noag172.049
Primary Topic
Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Karan Patel, Aoife Williamson, Chloë May, Charlotte Smith et al.
Neuro-Oncology
Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
article

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

Karan Patel, Aoife Williamson, Chloë May, Charlotte Smith, Sarah Kingdon, Nicola Blackler, Dr James Powell, Jennifer Golten, Amy Davies, Andrew Wright
article en

Abstract

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.

Neuro-OncologyVol. 28(Supplement_1)
Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre (GB), Edinburgh Cancer Research (GB), Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust (GB), London Cancer (GB), The Christie NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Velindre Cancer Centre (GB), University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (GB)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.