Zhang Helen, Onochie Ifeanyirochukwu, Hilal Lara, Wijetunga N Ari, Hipp Elizabeth, Guttmann David M, Cahlon Oren, Washington Charles, Gomez Daniel R, Gillespie Erin F
Department of Radiation Oncology.
Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jul 29;7(6):101009. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101009. eCollection 2022 Nov-Dec.
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.
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.
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 ( < .001), with subset analysis showing a significant difference for gastrointestinal cases (n = 49; <.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 ( = .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%; < .001) and 5 minutes (50%; = .002), respectively. Qualitative comments most often indicated edits required to bowel contours (n = 14).
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.
在一个多机构学术中心对一名放射解剖学家进行培训并将其纳入临床实践。这项质量改进研究的主要目标是确定放射解剖学家是否能提高危及器官(OAR)轮廓勾画的质量,其次是确定其对治疗计划过程效率的影响。
2020年3月至8月,纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心2家诊所所有接受基于计算机断层扫描的放射治疗计划的患者,采用“每隔一个”的流程被分配到以下两组之一:(1)由放射解剖学家进行OAR轮廓勾画(干预组)或(2)由主治医生进行轮廓勾画(护理标准组)。不知情的剂量师根据一个常见的临床试验方案偏差量表(1,可接受;2,轻微偏差;3,严重偏差),使用3分评分系统报告OAR轮廓质量。医生报告所有病例的轮廓勾画时间。分析包括Fisher精确检验和多变量有序逻辑回归。
有249例病例可用于主要终点分析(应答率为66%)。干预组OAR质量评分的平均值为1.1±0.4,护理标准组为1.4±0.7(P<.001),亚组分析显示胃肠道病例存在显著差异(n = 49;P<.001)。从模拟到轮廓批准的时间从对照组的3天(四分位间距[IQR],1 - 6天)减少到干预组的2天(IQR,1 - 5天)(P =.007)。与对照组相比,干预组的医生和剂量师都自我报告轮廓勾画时间减少,分别减少了8分钟(17%;P<.001)和5分钟(50%;P =.002)。定性评论最常指出肠道轮廓需要编辑(n = 14)。
这些发现支持在常规实践中通过引入放射解剖学家来提高OAR轮廓质量和工作流程效率。这些发现还可以通过识别导致临床效率低下的疾病部位和特定OAR来为自动分割的开发提供信息。未来需要进行研究以确定减少医生勾画OAR时间对职业倦怠的潜在影响。