Cargando…

Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact

PURPOSE: Repeat computed tomography (CT) simulation is problematic because of additional expense of clinic resources, patient inconvenience, additional radiation exposure, and treatment delay. We investigated the factors and clinical impact of unplanned CT resimulations in our network. METHODS AND M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Metzger, April, Renz, Paul, Hasan, Shaakir, Karlovits, Stephen, Sohn, Jason, Gresswell, Steven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6817516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31673665
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2019.06.002
_version_ 1783463439630336000
author Metzger, April
Renz, Paul
Hasan, Shaakir
Karlovits, Stephen
Sohn, Jason
Gresswell, Steven
author_facet Metzger, April
Renz, Paul
Hasan, Shaakir
Karlovits, Stephen
Sohn, Jason
Gresswell, Steven
author_sort Metzger, April
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Repeat computed tomography (CT) simulation is problematic because of additional expense of clinic resources, patient inconvenience, additional radiation exposure, and treatment delay. We investigated the factors and clinical impact of unplanned CT resimulations in our network. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the billing records of 18,170 patients treated at 5 clinics. A total of 213 patients were resimulated before their first treatment. The disease site, location, use of 4-dimensional CT (4DCT), contrast, image fusion, and cause for resimulation were recorded. Odds ratios determined statistical significance. RESULTS: Our total rate of resimulation was 1.2%. Anal/colorectal (P < .001) and head and neck (P < .001) disease sites had higher rates of resimulation. Brain (P = .001) and lung/thorax (P = .008) had lower rates of resimulation. The most common causes for resimulation were setup change (11.7%), change in patient anatomy (9.8%), and rectal filling (8.5%). The resimulation rate for 4DCTs was 3.03% compared with 1.0% for non-4DCTs (P < .001). Median time between simulations was 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: The most common sites for resimulation were anal/colorectal and head and neck, largely because of change in setup or changes in anatomy. The 4DCT technique correlated with higher resimulation rates. The resimulation rate was 1.2%, and median treatment delay was 7 days. Further studies are warranted to limit the rate of resimulation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6817516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68175162019-10-31 Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact Metzger, April Renz, Paul Hasan, Shaakir Karlovits, Stephen Sohn, Jason Gresswell, Steven Adv Radiat Oncol Patient Safety PURPOSE: Repeat computed tomography (CT) simulation is problematic because of additional expense of clinic resources, patient inconvenience, additional radiation exposure, and treatment delay. We investigated the factors and clinical impact of unplanned CT resimulations in our network. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the billing records of 18,170 patients treated at 5 clinics. A total of 213 patients were resimulated before their first treatment. The disease site, location, use of 4-dimensional CT (4DCT), contrast, image fusion, and cause for resimulation were recorded. Odds ratios determined statistical significance. RESULTS: Our total rate of resimulation was 1.2%. Anal/colorectal (P < .001) and head and neck (P < .001) disease sites had higher rates of resimulation. Brain (P = .001) and lung/thorax (P = .008) had lower rates of resimulation. The most common causes for resimulation were setup change (11.7%), change in patient anatomy (9.8%), and rectal filling (8.5%). The resimulation rate for 4DCTs was 3.03% compared with 1.0% for non-4DCTs (P < .001). Median time between simulations was 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: The most common sites for resimulation were anal/colorectal and head and neck, largely because of change in setup or changes in anatomy. The 4DCT technique correlated with higher resimulation rates. The resimulation rate was 1.2%, and median treatment delay was 7 days. Further studies are warranted to limit the rate of resimulation. Elsevier 2019-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6817516/ /pubmed/31673665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2019.06.002 Text en © 2019 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Patient Safety
Metzger, April
Renz, Paul
Hasan, Shaakir
Karlovits, Stephen
Sohn, Jason
Gresswell, Steven
Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact
title Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact
title_full Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact
title_fullStr Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact
title_full_unstemmed Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact
title_short Unforeseen Computed Tomography Resimulation for Initial Radiation Planning: Associated Factors and Clinical Impact
title_sort unforeseen computed tomography resimulation for initial radiation planning: associated factors and clinical impact
topic Patient Safety
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6817516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31673665
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2019.06.002
work_keys_str_mv AT metzgerapril unforeseencomputedtomographyresimulationforinitialradiationplanningassociatedfactorsandclinicalimpact
AT renzpaul unforeseencomputedtomographyresimulationforinitialradiationplanningassociatedfactorsandclinicalimpact
AT hasanshaakir unforeseencomputedtomographyresimulationforinitialradiationplanningassociatedfactorsandclinicalimpact
AT karlovitsstephen unforeseencomputedtomographyresimulationforinitialradiationplanningassociatedfactorsandclinicalimpact
AT sohnjason unforeseencomputedtomographyresimulationforinitialradiationplanningassociatedfactorsandclinicalimpact
AT gresswellsteven unforeseencomputedtomographyresimulationforinitialradiationplanningassociatedfactorsandclinicalimpact