Cargando…

Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning

PURPOSE: A radiation anatomist was trained and integrated into clinical practice at a multi-site academic center. The primary objective of this quality improvement study was to determine whether a radiation anatomist improves the quality of organ-at-risk (OAR) contours, and secondarily to determine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Helen, Onochie, Ifeanyirochukwu, Hilal, Lara, Wijetunga, N. Ari, Hipp, Elizabeth, Guttmann, David M., Cahlon, Oren, Washington, Charles, Gomez, Daniel R., Gillespie, Erin F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9449753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101009
_version_ 1784784372770013184
author Zhang, Helen
Onochie, Ifeanyirochukwu
Hilal, Lara
Wijetunga, N. Ari
Hipp, Elizabeth
Guttmann, David M.
Cahlon, Oren
Washington, Charles
Gomez, Daniel R.
Gillespie, Erin F.
author_facet Zhang, Helen
Onochie, Ifeanyirochukwu
Hilal, Lara
Wijetunga, N. Ari
Hipp, Elizabeth
Guttmann, David M.
Cahlon, Oren
Washington, Charles
Gomez, Daniel R.
Gillespie, Erin F.
author_sort Zhang, Helen
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: A radiation anatomist was trained and integrated into clinical practice at a multi-site academic center. The primary objective of this quality improvement study was to determine whether a radiation anatomist improves the quality of organ-at-risk (OAR) contours, and secondarily to determine the impact on efficiency in the treatment planning process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From March to August 2020, all patients undergoing computed tomography–based radiation planning at 2 clinics at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were assigned using an “every other” process to either (1) OAR contouring by a radiation anatomist (intervention) or (2) contouring by the treating physician (standard of care). Blinded dosimetrists reported OAR contour quality using a 3-point scoring system based on a common clinical trial protocol deviation scale (1, acceptable; 2, minor deviation; and 3, major deviation). Physicians reported time spent contouring for all cases. Analyses included the Fisher exact test and multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 249 cases with data available for the primary endpoint (66% response rate). The mean OAR quality rating was 1.1 ± 0.4 for the intervention group and 1.4 ± 0.7 for the standard of care group (P < .001), with subset analysis showing a significant difference for gastrointestinal cases (n = 49; P <.001). Time from simulation to contour approval was reduced from 3 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6 days) in the control group to 2 days (IQR, 1-5 days) in the intervention group (P = .007). Both physicians and dosimetrists self-reported decreased time spent contouring in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a decreases of 8 minutes (17%; P < .001) and 5 minutes (50%; P = .002), respectively. Qualitative comments most often indicated edits required to bowel contours (n = 14). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support improvements in both OAR contour quality and workflow efficiency with implementation of a radiation anatomist in routine practice. Findings could also inform development of autosegmentation by identifying disease sites and specific OARs contributing to low clinical efficiency. Future research is needed to determine the potential effect of reduced physician time spent contouring OARs on burnout.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9449753
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94497532022-09-08 Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning Zhang, Helen Onochie, Ifeanyirochukwu Hilal, Lara Wijetunga, N. Ari Hipp, Elizabeth Guttmann, David M. Cahlon, Oren Washington, Charles Gomez, Daniel R. Gillespie, Erin F. Adv Radiat Oncol Scientific Article PURPOSE: A radiation anatomist was trained and integrated into clinical practice at a multi-site academic center. The primary objective of this quality improvement study was to determine whether a radiation anatomist improves the quality of organ-at-risk (OAR) contours, and secondarily to determine the impact on efficiency in the treatment planning process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From March to August 2020, all patients undergoing computed tomography–based radiation planning at 2 clinics at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were assigned using an “every other” process to either (1) OAR contouring by a radiation anatomist (intervention) or (2) contouring by the treating physician (standard of care). Blinded dosimetrists reported OAR contour quality using a 3-point scoring system based on a common clinical trial protocol deviation scale (1, acceptable; 2, minor deviation; and 3, major deviation). Physicians reported time spent contouring for all cases. Analyses included the Fisher exact test and multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 249 cases with data available for the primary endpoint (66% response rate). The mean OAR quality rating was 1.1 ± 0.4 for the intervention group and 1.4 ± 0.7 for the standard of care group (P < .001), with subset analysis showing a significant difference for gastrointestinal cases (n = 49; P <.001). Time from simulation to contour approval was reduced from 3 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6 days) in the control group to 2 days (IQR, 1-5 days) in the intervention group (P = .007). Both physicians and dosimetrists self-reported decreased time spent contouring in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a decreases of 8 minutes (17%; P < .001) and 5 minutes (50%; P = .002), respectively. Qualitative comments most often indicated edits required to bowel contours (n = 14). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support improvements in both OAR contour quality and workflow efficiency with implementation of a radiation anatomist in routine practice. Findings could also inform development of autosegmentation by identifying disease sites and specific OARs contributing to low clinical efficiency. Future research is needed to determine the potential effect of reduced physician time spent contouring OARs on burnout. Elsevier 2022-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9449753/ /pubmed/36092987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101009 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://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 Scientific Article
Zhang, Helen
Onochie, Ifeanyirochukwu
Hilal, Lara
Wijetunga, N. Ari
Hipp, Elizabeth
Guttmann, David M.
Cahlon, Oren
Washington, Charles
Gomez, Daniel R.
Gillespie, Erin F.
Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning
title Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning
title_full Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning
title_fullStr Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning
title_full_unstemmed Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning
title_short Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Integrating a Radiation Anatomist for Contouring in Routine Radiation Treatment Planning
title_sort prospective clinical evaluation of integrating a radiation anatomist for contouring in routine radiation treatment planning
topic Scientific Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9449753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101009
work_keys_str_mv AT zhanghelen prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT onochieifeanyirochukwu prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT hilallara prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT wijetunganari prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT hippelizabeth prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT guttmanndavidm prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT cahlonoren prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT washingtoncharles prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT gomezdanielr prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning
AT gillespieerinf prospectiveclinicalevaluationofintegratingaradiationanatomistforcontouringinroutineradiationtreatmentplanning