Image and isocentre management in the paperless age: an automated decision making model

Purpose: The introduction of sophisticated imaging and image analysis tools into daily radiotherapy has made it feasible to undertake image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) on a daily basis. The aim of this paper is to outline that the introduction of a paperless automated decision making model to assess systematic trends in field placement can enhance the efficiency of a treating radiotherapy team. Methods: Automated custom reports were written using Infomaker (Sybase, Dublin, California, USA) to integrate with the ARIA (Varian, Palo Alto, California, USA) patient information system. This allowed automated systematic trend identification in treatment field set-up. The efficiency and accuracy of an automated approach was then compared to manual field placement analysis and a statistical model (Newcastle model). Results: The automated decision making model has been shown to reduce the amount of time taken to analyse images and systematic trend analysis, when compared to manual methods, significantly (P less than 0.001). In addition to the enhanced efficiency there is no trade off in accuracy with the automated decision making model. Discussion: An automated approach to trend analysis allows the treating radiotherapy team to manage field placement in a highly efficient manner, which is paramount in the era of increased image data. A paperless approach to image analysis and field placement trend analysis places the responsibility of accurate field placement on the radiation therapist and represents a vital link in the management of an IGRT protocol. Conclusion: In the era of IGRT with increased imaging data, efficient methods must be found to analyse and manage systematic trends. An automated decision making model represents an increase in efficiency with no trade off in accuracy.

[1]  J W Denham,et al.  Objective decision-making following a portal film: the results of a pilot study. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  H Shirato,et al.  Use of an implanted marker and real-time tracking of the marker for the positioning of prostate and bladder cancers. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  D Yan,et al.  A new model for "accept or reject" strategies in off-line and on-line megavoltage treatment evaluation. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Sarah A. Martin Accept or reject? , 2010, Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners.

[5]  D P Dearnaley,et al.  A randomised trial of patient repositioning during radiotherapy using a megavoltage imaging system. , 1994, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[6]  M van Herk,et al.  Automatic on-line inspection of patient setup in radiation therapy using digital portal images. , 1993, Medical physics.

[7]  R. Louwe,et al.  Off-line setup corrections only marginally reduce the number of on-line corrections for prostate radiotherapy using implanted gold markers. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[8]  Michael G Herman,et al.  Technical aspects of daily online positioning of the prostate for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy using an electronic portal imaging device. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  M van Herk,et al.  A verification procedure to improve patient set-up accuracy using portal images. , 1993, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[10]  M van Herk,et al.  A comprehensive system for the analysis of portal images. , 1993, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  James M. Balter,et al.  A comparison of computer‐controlled versus manual on‐line patient setup adjustment , 2002, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[12]  J Wong,et al.  Setup error in radiotherapy: on-line correction using electronic kilovoltage and megavoltage radiographs. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  H Alasti,et al.  Portal imaging for evaluation of daily on-line setup errors and off-line organ motion during conformal irradiation of carcinoma of the prostate. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  J Pouliot,et al.  Verification and correction of setup deviations in tangential breast irradiation using EPID: gain versus workload. , 1996, Medical physics.

[15]  M Coghe,et al.  Routine clinical on-line portal imaging followed by immediate field adjustment using a tele-controlled patient couch. , 1992, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[16]  P. Dunscombe,et al.  Quantitative vs. subjective portal verification using digital portal images. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  A. See,et al.  Online versus offline corrections: opposition or evolution? A comparison of two electronic portal imaging approaches for locally advanced prostate cancer , 2006 .

[18]  A Dutreix,et al.  Black and white in accuracy assessment of megavoltage images: the medical decision is often grey. , 1993, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[19]  Di Yan,et al.  Comparison of various online IGRT strategies: The benefits of online treatment plan re-optimization. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.