Evaluation of clinical parallel workflow in online adaptive MR-guided Radiotherapy: A detailed assessment of treatment session times.

Clinical parallel workflow MR-guided radiotherapy Online adaptive radiotherapy Treatment time analysis

Journal

Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6324
Titre abrégé: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101762366

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 20 11 2023
revised: 11 01 2024
accepted: 08 02 2024
medline: 26 2 2024
pubmed: 26 2 2024
entrez: 26 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Advancements in MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) enable clinical parallel workflows (CPW) for online adaptive planning (oART), allowing medical physicists (MPs), physicians (MDs), and radiation therapists (RTTs) to perform their tasks simultaneously. This study evaluates the impact of this upgrade on the total treatment time by analyzing each step of the current 0.35T-MRgRT workflow. The time process of the workflow steps for 254 treatment fractions in 0.35 MRgRT was examined. Patients have been grouped based on disease site, breathing modality (BM) (BHI or FB), and fractionation (stereotactic body RT [SBRT] or standard fractionated long course [LC]). The time spent for the following workflow steps in Adaptive Treatment (ADP) was analyzed: Patient Setup Time (PSt), MRI Acquisition and Matching (MRt), MR Re-contouring Time (RCt), Re-Planning Time (RPt), Treatment Delivery Time (TDt). Also analyzed was the timing of treatments that followed a Simple workflow (SMP), without the online re-planning (PSt + MRt + TDt.). The time analysis revealed that the ADP workflow (median: 34 min) is significantly (p < 0.05) longer than the SMP workflow (19 min). The time required for ADP treatments is significantly influenced by TDt, constituting 40 % of the total time. The oART steps (RCt + RPt) took 11 min (median), representing 27 % of the entire procedure. Overall, 79.2 % of oART fractions were completed in less than 45 min, and 30.6 % were completed in less than 30 min. This preliminary analysis, along with the comparative assessment against existing literature, underscores the potential of CPW to diminish the overall treatment duration in MRgRT-oART. Additionally, it suggests the potential for CPW to promote a more integrated multidisciplinary approach in the execution of oART.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38405058
doi: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100239
pii: S2405-6324(24)00006-4
pmc: PMC10883837
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100239

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Claudio Votta (C)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Sara Iacovone (S)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Gabriele Turco (G)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Valerio Carrozzo (V)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Marica Vagni (M)

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy.

Aurora Scalia (A)

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy.

Giuditta Chiloiro (G)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Guenda Meffe (G)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Matteo Nardini (M)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Giulia Panza (G)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Lorenzo Placidi (L)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Angela Romano (A)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Patrizia Cornacchione (P)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Maria Antonietta Gambacorta (MA)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy.

Luca Boldrini (L)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy.

Classifications MeSH