Peer Review in Radiation Oncology: Where Does the Middle East, North Africa, and Türkiye Region Stand?

• Published in: JCO global oncology Vol. 10; no. 10; p. e2400229
• Main Authors: Abutaha, Shatha, Mula-Hussain, Layth, ElHaddad, Mostafa, Sami, Sara, Ammar, Khawla, Dahbi, Zineb, Jabbour, Caroline, Selek, Ugur, Abu-Hijlih, Ramiz, Al-Ibraheem, Akram, Abuhijla, Fawzi, Abbasi, Ahmed, Bushehri, Ahmad, Alotain, Ibrahim, Aldehaim, Mohammed, Alghamdi, Majed, Abu-Gheida, Ibrahim, Pervez, Nadeem, Youssef, Bassem, Alrashidi, Saad, El-Sheshtawy, Wael, Hosni, Ali, Mohamad, Issa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Society of Clinical Oncology 01.08.2024
• Subjects: Africa, Northern; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Middle East; Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Peer Review; Radiation Oncology - standards; Surveys and Questionnaires; Africa, Northern; Middle East
• ISSN: 2687-8941; 2687-8941
• DOI: 10.1200/GO.24.00229

This study aims to assess the status of radiation oncology peer review procedures across the Middle East, North Africa, and Türkiye (MENAT) region. A cross-sectional electronic survey was conducted among radiotherapy centers in the MENAT region in March 2024. It assessed peer review practices, departmental demographics, perceived importance of peer review, and potential barriers. Data from 177 radiation oncology centers revealed varying peer review implementation across the MENAT region. Egypt had the highest participation (16.4%) among all responders. Most centers (31%) treated 500-1,000 cases annually. The majority (77.4%) implemented peer review, with varying levels between countries and across different centers. Advanced radiotherapy techniques significantly correlated with implementation of peer review ( < .05). Peer review meetings were mostly scheduled on a weekly basis (46%) and organized by radiation oncologists (84.7%). Target volume contouring (89%) and radiotherapy prescription (82%) were frequently peer-reviewed. Respondents with peer review at their institutions significantly valued peer review for education, adherence to guidelines, improving planning protocols, and reducing variation in practice institutions without peer review ( < .05). The most frequently reported barriers to peer review were having a high number of patients (56%) and shortage of time (54%). Peer review is essential for improving the quality of practice in radiation oncology. Despite some discrepancies, numerous obstacles, and challenges in implementation, it is instrumental in the improvement of patient care in most centers throughout the region. Raising awareness among radiation oncologists about the importance of peer review is paramount to lead to better outcomes.