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

Clicks: 21
ID: 326723
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #107 of 286 articles by views in journal of neuro-oncology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 286 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
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.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204455178 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sarah Kingdon, Nicola Blackler, Amy Davies, Jennifer Golten, Chloë May, James Powell, Charlotte Smith, Aoife Williamson, Andrew Wright, Karan Patel
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal journal of neuro-oncology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/neuonc/noag172.049
URL
https://academic.oup.com/neuro-oncology/article-pdf/28/Supplement_1/noag172.049/70805969/noag172.049.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.