330 oral A COMPARISON OF TREATMENT AND IMAGE MATCH TIME FOR THREE DIFFERENT IGRT – PROCEDURES IN RT OF BLADDER CANCER

Ellegaard, M; Schouboe, A.; Vestergaard, A.; Muren, L.P.

doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(11)70452-2

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and Ellegaard et al. who observed a three‐minute decrease in matching to bony surrogates compared to soft tissue in their studies investigating CBCT image analysis 3,13 . Robb et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 These results are supported by Higgins et al and Ellegaard et al who observed a three-minute decrease in matching to bony surrogates compared to soft tissue in their studies investigating CBCT image analysis. 3,13 Robb et al compared online decision analysis times with kV imaging for pelvis, head and neck, and chest patients and attributed efficient image analysis to treatment sites that had well-defined anatomical boundaries. 16 Li et al confirmed that difficult soft tissue visualisation can delay image matching.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of this study suggest the similarity in Hounsfield Units (HU) amongst adjacent structures delayed efficient delineation of soft tissue boundaries, alluding to image quality also having an influential role in efficient image analysis. 2,13,16 The shorter decision analysis times for pelvis, breast, and chest, which are a combination of bony and soft tissue matching, indicate that consulting bone can reduce the online decision analysis time. 2,13 The comments made by staff during the imagematching process indicated that other considerations specific to a treatment site may influence the online decision analysis time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2,13,16 The shorter decision analysis times for pelvis, breast, and chest, which are a combination of bony and soft tissue matching, indicate that consulting bone can reduce the online decision analysis time. 2,13 The comments made by staff during the imagematching process indicated that other considerations specific to a treatment site may influence the online decision analysis time. 2,16 Comments related to the variability of the organ filling suggested extra deliberation was required to evaluate the size and shape of these organs to proceed with treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to its ability to capture more anatomical and positioning detail compared to kV and MV, CBCT imaging is becoming standard of care and has led to radiation therapy centres shifting towards predominantly CBCT image verification workflows 2,3,8–15 . CBCT imaging allows clinicians to gain a greater sense of patient‐external contour changes and the positioning of the target and OARs but in comparison to kV and MV imaging has been documented to possess longer online decision‐analysis times 3,9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An evaluation of isocentre shift magnitude and treatment site on image‐guided radiation therapy online decision analysis times

Clark

Pollard

Brown

2023

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe ability to capture more anatomical detail in cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging compared to kilovoltage (kV) and megavoltage (MV) imaging, has seen a documented shift towards CBCT image verification and staff adopting more extensive image analysis processes. The timeframe associated with assessing online CBCT images, termed the online decision analysis time, if drawn out, can affect treatment efficiency and accuracy. This study aimed to determine the current CBCT online decision analysis time at Radiation Oncology Princess Alexandra Ipswich Road (ROPAIR) and investigate the influence of isocentre shift magnitude and treatment site considerations on this timeframe.MethodsThis retrospective clinical audit collected treatment parameters from 202 CBCT images over 2 treatment days. The online decision analysis time was calculated by subtracting the image acquisition timestamp from the image verification shift application timestamp. The quantitative data were analysed using mean, standard deviation, and range in the following categories: all CBCTs, CBCTs grouped by isocentre shift magnitude and CBCTs grouped by treatment site. Content analysis was performed on staff comments made during image analysis.ResultsThe average online decision analysis time was 2:37 ± 1:28 min. On average approximately, head and neck, spine and extremity treatment sites measured 1 min, pelvis, breast, and chest measured 2–3 min with abdomen measuring 4 min. Common categories reported in staff comments included anatomical changes, repositioning, and organs at risk size.ConclusionThe results provide baseline online decision analysis times. Further refinement is required to determine if the image match method, treatment site considerations, and rotational discrepancies influence this timeframe.

show abstract

“…and Ellegaard et al. who observed a three‐minute decrease in matching to bony surrogates compared to soft tissue in their studies investigating CBCT image analysis 3,13 . Robb et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%