Engineering topics

Holdsworth, Clay

Publications and source records attributed to Holdsworth, Clay.

3 records

DOE OSTI2017

Computerized System for Safety Verification of External Beam Radiation Therapy Planning

Purpose: To report an assessment of in-house software, Verifier, developed to improve efficacy and efficiency of the radiation therapy (RT) treatment planning process and quality control review (QCR). Methods and Materials: Radiation therapy plan parameters retrieved from our treatment planning database are used by automated tests to give 75 types of warnings, such as prescription and plan discrepancies. The software is continuously updated on the basis of new issues, ideas, and planning policies. Verifier was retrospectively assessed (2007-2015) by examining impact on treatment plan revisions, frequency of quality improvement incident reports of avoidable RT plan-related safety events, unaddressed issues, and staff efficiency. Results: Plan revisions for specific issues declined dramatically in response to implementation of corresponding Verifier tests. Between 2012 and 2015 our institution's total rate of plan revisions dropped from 18.0% to 11.2%. Between 2008 and 2015 specific tests were added to Verifier while the rate of corresponding avoidable safety events was reduced from 0.34% to 0.00% over the same period. Simulations suggest Verifier saves approximately 2 to 5 minutes per QCR. Conclusions: The decrease in quantifiable metrics of plan revisions and incident reports suggests automatic RT plan-checking software enhances patient safety and clinical efficiency. Although only modest time savings may be gained using Verifier for the QCR itself, the greater impact on efficiency is through avoiding late-stage plan modifications and improving documentation via automation. We encourage other institutions to consider working toward adding similar technologies to enhance their RT quality assurance programs.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2011

Scripting in Radiation Therapy: An Automatic 3D Beam-Naming System

Scripts can be executed within the radiation treatment planning software framework to reduce human error, increase treatment planning efficiency, reduce confusion, and promote consistency within an institution or even among institutions. Scripting is versatile, and one application is an automatic 3D beam-naming system that describes the position of the beam relative to the patient in 3D space. The naming system meets the need for nomenclature that is conducive for clear and accurate communication of beam entry relative to patient anatomy. In radiation oncology in particular, where miscommunication can cause significant harm to patients, a system that minimizes error is essential. Frequent sharing of radiation treatment information occurs not only among members within a department but also between different treatment centers. Descriptions of treatment beams are perhaps the most commonly shared information about a patient's course of treatment in radiation oncology. Automating the naming system by the use of a script reduces the potential for human error, improves efficiency, enforces consistency, and would allow an institution to convert to a new naming system with greater ease. This script has been implemented in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Washington Medical Center since December 2009. It is currently part of the dosimetry protocol and is accessible by medical dosimetrists, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists. This paper highlights the advantages of using an automatic 3D beam-naming script to flawlessly and quickly identify treatment beams with unique names. Scripting in radiation treatment planning software has many uses and great potential for improving clinical care.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2011

When is better best? A multiobjective perspective

Purpose: To identify the most informative methods for reporting results of treatment planning comparisons. Methods: Seven articles from the past year of International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics reported on comparisons of treatment plans for IMRT and IMAT. The articles were reviewed to identify methods of comparisons. Decision theoretical concepts were used to evaluate the study methods and highlight those that provide the most information. Results: None of the studies examined the correlation between objectives. Statistical comparisons provided some information but not enough to provide support for a robust decision analysis. Conclusions: The increased use of treatment planning studies to evaluate different methods in radiation therapy requires improved standards for designing the studies and reporting the results.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗