Physician review of image registration and normal structure delineation

被引:3
作者
Turchan, William Tyler [1 ]
Arya, Ritu [1 ]
Hight, Robert [1 ]
Al-Hallaq, Hania [1 ]
Dominello, Michael [2 ]
Joyce, Dan [1 ]
McCabe, Bradley P. [1 ]
McCall, Anne R. [1 ]
Perevalova, Eugenia [1 ]
Stepaniak, Christopher [1 ]
Yenice, Kamil [1 ]
Burmeister, Jay [2 ]
Golden, Daniel W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Dept Radiat & Cellular Oncol, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[2] Wayne State Univ, Karmanos Canc Inst, Dept Oncol, Div Radiat Oncol, Detroit, MI USA
来源
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS | 2020年 / 21卷 / 11期
关键词
image registration; organs at risk; patient safety; quality assurance; radiotherapy; RADIATION-THERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY; ROUNDS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.13031
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Introduction Image registration and delineation of organs at risk (OARs) are key components of three-dimensional conformal (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning. This study hypothesized that image registration and OAR delineation are often performed by medical physicists and/or dosimetrists and are not routinely reviewed by treating physicians. Methods An anonymous, internet-based survey of medical physicists and dosimetrists was distributed via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. Participants were asked to characterize standard practices for completion and review of OAR contouring, target volume contouring, and image registration at their institution along with their personal training in these areas and level of comfort performing these tasks. Likert-type scales are reported as Median [Interquartile range] with scores ranging from 1 = "Extremely/All of the time" to 5 = "Not at all/Never." Results Two hundred and ninety-seven individuals responded to the survey. Overall, respondents indicated significantly less frequent physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3]), and less confidence in the thoroughness of physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3],P < 0.01) of OAR contours compared to image registration. Only 19% (95% CI 14-24%) of respondents reported a formal process by which OAR volumes are reviewed by physicians in their clinic. The presence of a formal review process was also associated with significantly higher perceived thoroughness of review of OAR volumes compared to clinics with no formal review process (2 [2-3] vs 3 [2-4],P < 0.01). Conclusion Despite the critical role of OAR delineation and image registration in the 3DCRT and IMRT treatment planning process, physician review of these tasks is not always optimal. Radiotherapy clinics should consider implementation of formal processes to promote adequate physician review of OARs and image registrations to ensure the quality and safety of radiotherapy treatment plans.
引用
收藏
页码:80 / 87
页数:8
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] American Society for Radiation Oncology, 2019, SAF IS NO ACC
  • [2] Dose Constraints to Prevent Radiation-Induced Brachial Plexopathy in Patients Treated for Lung Cancer
    Amini, Arya
    Yang, Jinzhong
    Williamson, Ryan
    McBurney, Michelle L.
    Erasmus, Jeremy, Jr.
    Allen, Pamela K.
    Karhade, Mandar
    Komaki, Ritsuko
    Liao, Zhongxing
    Gomez, Daniel
    Cox, James
    Dong, Lei
    Welsh, James
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 82 (03): : E391 - E398
  • [3] Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task
    Brock, Kristy K.
    Mutic, Sasa
    McNutt, Todd R.
    Li, Hua
    Kessler, Marc L.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (07) : E43 - E76
  • [4] Proposed genitalia contouring guidelines in anal cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy
    Brooks, C.
    Hansen, V. N.
    Riddell, A.
    Harris, V. A.
    Tait, D. M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2015, 88 (1051)
  • [5] Collier Dawn C, 2003, J Appl Clin Med Phys, V4, P17, DOI 10.1120/1.1521271
  • [6] Prospective contouring rounds: A novel, high-impact tool for optimizing quality assurance
    Cox, Brett W.
    Kapur, Ajay
    Sharma, Anurag
    Lee, Lucille
    Bloom, Beatrice
    Sharma, Rajiv
    Goode, Gina
    Potters, Louis
    [J]. PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2015, 5 (05) : E431 - E436
  • [7] Common error pathways seen in the RO-ILS data that demonstrate opportunities for improving treatment safety
    Ezzell, Gary
    Chera, Bhisham
    Dicker, Adam
    Ford, Eric
    Potters, Louis
    Santanam, Lakshmi
    Weintraub, Sheri
    [J]. PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2018, 8 (02) : 123 - 132
  • [8] EVALUATION OF SAFETY IN A RADIATION ONCOLOGY SETTING USING FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
    Ford, Eric C.
    Gaudette, Ray
    Myers, Lee
    Vanderver, Bruce
    Engineer, Lilly
    Zellars, Richard
    Song, Danny Y.
    Wong, John
    DeWeese, Theodore L.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2009, 74 (03): : 852 - 858
  • [9] Pelvic Normal Tissue Contouring Guidelines for Radiation Therapy: A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Consensus Panel Atlas
    Gay, Hiram A.
    Barthold, H. Joseph
    O'Meara, Elizabeth
    Bosch, Walter R.
    El Naqa, Issam
    Al-Lozi, Rawan
    Rosenthal, Seth A.
    Lawton, Colleen
    Lee, W. Robert
    Sandler, Howard
    Zietman, Anthony
    Myerson, Robert
    Dawson, Laura A.
    Willett, Christopher
    Kachnic, Lisa A.
    Jhingran, Anuja
    Portelance, Lorraine
    Ryu, Janice
    Small, William, Jr.
    Gaffney, David
    Viswanathan, Akila N.
    Michalski, Jeff M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 83 (03): : E353 - E362
  • [10] Glazer A., 2018, Journal of Cutaneous Medicine, V2, P122, DOI DOI 10.25251/SKIN.2.2.4