Liu Jian, Goenka Anuj, Calugaru Emel, Baker Jameson, Cao Yijian, Schulder Michael, Chang Jenghwa
Brown University Radiation Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, USA.
Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, USA.
Cureus. 2022 Aug 30;14(8):e28606. doi: 10.7759/cureus.28606. eCollection 2022 Aug.
Objective To improve the efficiency of frame-based and frameless Gamma Knife® Icon™ (GKI) treatments by analyzing the workflows of both treatment approaches and identifying steps that lead to prolonged patient in-clinic or treatment time. Methods The treatment processes of 57 GKI patients, 16 frame-based and 41 frameless cases were recorded and analyzed. For frame-based treatments, time points were recorded for various steps in the process, including check-in, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) completion, plan approval, and treatment start/end times. The time required for completing each step was calculated and investigated. For frameless treatments, the actual and planned treatment times were compared to evaluate the patient tolerance of the treatment. In addition, the time spent on room cleaning and preparation between treatments was also recorded and analyzed. Results For frame-based cases, the average in-clinic time was 6.3 hours (ranging from 4 to 8.7 hours). The average time from patient check-in to plan approval was 4.2 hours (ranging from 2.8 to 5.5 hours), during which the frame was placed, stereotactic reference MRI images were taken, target volumes were contoured, and the treatment plan was developed and second-checked. For patients immobilized with a mask, treatment pauses triggered by the intra-fractional motion monitoring system resulted in a significantly longer actual treatment time than the planned time. In 50 (or 55%) of the 91 frameless treatments, the patient on-table time was longer than the planned treatment time by more than 10 minutes, and in 19 (or 21%) of the treatments the time difference was larger than 20 minutes. Major treatment interruptions, defined as pauses leading to a longer than 10-minute delay, were more commonly encountered in patients with a planned treatment time longer than 40 minutes, which accounted for 64% of the recorded major interruptions. Conclusion For frame-based cases, the multiple pretreatment steps (from patient check-in to plan approval) in the workflow were time-consuming and resulted in prolonged patient in-clinic time. These pretreatment steps may be shortened by performing some of these steps before the treatment day, e.g., pre-planning the treatment using diagnostic MRI scans acquired a few days earlier. For frameless patients, we found that a longer planned treatment time is associated with a higher chance of treatment interruption. For patients with a long treatment time, a planned break or consideration of fractionated treatments (i.e., 3 to 5 fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery) may optimize the workflow and improve patient satisfaction.
目的 通过分析基于框架和无框架伽玛刀Icon™(GKI)治疗的工作流程,并确定导致患者门诊时间或治疗时间延长的步骤,以提高这两种治疗方法的效率。方法 记录并分析了57例GKI患者的治疗过程,其中16例为基于框架治疗,41例为无框架治疗。对于基于框架的治疗,记录了过程中各个步骤的时间点,包括登记、磁共振成像(MRI)完成、计划批准以及治疗开始/结束时间。计算并研究了完成每个步骤所需的时间。对于无框架治疗,比较了实际治疗时间和计划治疗时间,以评估患者对治疗的耐受性。此外,还记录并分析了治疗之间用于房间清洁和准备的时间。结果 对于基于框架的病例,平均门诊时间为6.3小时(范围为4至8.7小时)。从患者登记到计划批准的平均时间为4.2小时(范围为2.8至5.5小时),在此期间放置框架、采集立体定向参考MRI图像、勾勒靶区体积、制定并二次检查治疗计划。对于使用面罩固定的患者,由分次内运动监测系统触发的治疗暂停导致实际治疗时间明显长于计划时间。在91例无框架治疗中的50例(或55%)中,患者在治疗台上的时间比计划治疗时间长超过10分钟,在19例(或21%)治疗中时间差大于20分钟。主要治疗中断定义为导致延迟超过10分钟的暂停,在计划治疗时间超过40分钟的患者中更常见,占记录的主要中断的64%。结论 对于基于框架的病例,工作流程中的多个预处理步骤(从患者登记到计划批准)耗时且导致患者门诊时间延长。这些预处理步骤可以通过在治疗日前执行其中一些步骤来缩短,例如使用几天前采集的诊断性MRI扫描进行治疗预计划。对于无框架患者,我们发现计划治疗时间越长,治疗中断的可能性越高。对于治疗时间长的患者,计划休息或考虑分次治疗(即3至5次分次立体定向放射外科治疗)可能优化工作流程并提高患者满意度。