Brachytherapy · 2018
Workflow and efficiency in MRI-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer in a high-volume brachytherapy center.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Hayeon, Houser Christopher J, Kalash Ronny, Maceil Carly A, Palestra Brett, Malush Deborah, Beriwal Sushil
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We report the clinical workflow and time required for MRI-based image-guided brachytherapy (MR-IGBT) of cervical cancer patients in a high-volume brachytherapy center with 10 years of experiences to provide a practical guideline for implementing MR-IGBT into clinical use.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We recorded the time and workflow of each procedure step within the 40 consecutive ring and tandem applicator fractions of MR-IGBT by our multidisciplinary team. We divided the entire procedure into four sections based on where the procedure was performed: (1) applicator insertion under sedation, (2) MR imaging, (3) planning, and (4) treatment delivery. In addition, we compared the current procedure time to the initial procedure time when first implementing MR-IGBT in 2007-2008 via a retrospective review.
RESULTS: Mean total procedure time was 149.3 min (SD 17.9, ranges 112-178). The multidisciplinary team included an anesthesia team, radiologist, radiation oncologist, nurses, radiation therapists, MRI technicians, dosimetrists, and physicists. The mean procedure time and ranges for each section (min) were as follows: (1) 56.2 (28.0-103.0), (2) 31.0 (19.0-70.0), (3) 44.3 (21.0-104.0), and (4) 17.8 (9.0-34.0). Under current setting, the combined mean procedure time for MR imaging and planning was 63.2 min. In comparison, the same procedure took 137.7 min in 2007-2008 period, which was significantly longer than the current workflow (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A skilled and dedicated multidisciplinary team is required for an efficient clinical workflow and delivery of MR-IGBT. Over the years, we have improved efficiency with clinical experience and continuous efforts in staff education.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We recorded the time and workflow of each procedure step within the 40 consecutive ring and tandem applicator fractions of MR-IGBT by our multidisciplinary team. We divided the entire procedure into four sections based on where the procedure was performed: (1) applicator insertion under sedation, (2) MR imaging, (3) planning, and (4) treatment delivery. In addition, we compared the current procedure time to the initial procedure time when first implementing MR-IGBT in 2007-2008 via a retrospective review.
RESULTS: Mean total procedure time was 149.3 min (SD 17.9, ranges 112-178). The multidisciplinary team included an anesthesia team, radiologist, radiation oncologist, nurses, radiation therapists, MRI technicians, dosimetrists, and physicists. The mean procedure time and ranges for each section (min) were as follows: (1) 56.2 (28.0-103.0), (2) 31.0 (19.0-70.0), (3) 44.3 (21.0-104.0), and (4) 17.8 (9.0-34.0). Under current setting, the combined mean procedure time for MR imaging and planning was 63.2 min. In comparison, the same procedure took 137.7 min in 2007-2008 period, which was significantly longer than the current workflow (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A skilled and dedicated multidisciplinary team is required for an efficient clinical workflow and delivery of MR-IGBT. Over the years, we have improved efficiency with clinical experience and continuous efforts in staff education.