Image Guidance in Radiation Oncology Treatment Planning: The Role of Imaging Technologies on the Planning Process

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Mah ◽  
Chin Cheng Chen
1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L. Smith ◽  
Wei-Kom Chu ◽  
Randy Wobig ◽  
Hong-Yang Chao ◽  
Charles Enke

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stasa Jelercic ◽  
Mirjana Rajer

AbstractBackground. PET-CT is becoming more and more important in various aspects of oncology. Until recently it was used mainly as part of diagnostic procedures and for evaluation of treatment results. With development of personalized radiotherapy, volumetric and radiobiological characteristics of individual tumour have become integrated in the multistep radiotherapy (RT) planning process. Standard anatomical imaging used to select and delineate RT target volumes can be enriched by the information on tumour biology gained by PET-CT. In this review we explore the current and possible future role of PET-CT in radiotherapy treatment planning. After general explanation, we assess its role in radiotherapy of those solid tumours for which PET-CT is being used most.Conclusions. In the nearby future PET-CT will be an integral part of the most radiotherapy treatment planning procedures in an every-day clinical practice. Apart from a clear role in radiation planning of lung cancer, with forthcoming clinical trials, we will get more evidence of the optimal use of PET-CT in radiotherapy planning of other solid tumours


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-183
Author(s):  
Christopher Freese ◽  
Neil Forster ◽  
Brittany Prater ◽  
Meredith Amlung ◽  
Michael Lamba ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6151-6151
Author(s):  
J. B. Fiveash ◽  
J. Howerton ◽  
M. Hyatt ◽  
K. Sinclair ◽  
O. L. Burnett ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Arpine Khudanyan ◽  
Jerry Jeff Jaboin ◽  
Barb Agrimson ◽  
Simon Brown ◽  
Wolfram Laub ◽  
...  

84 Background: The treatment planning process is the most impactful and complex aspect of radiation oncology care. In order to provide short turn around times from patient CT simulation to treatment plan QA, requires a level of strain and haste for multiple members of the treatment team. We evaluated 18 months of data to determine the percentage of Quality Assurance (QA) approvals of nonemergent complex plans (including 3D/IMRT/Arc/SBRT/SRS) that are not completed by 8:00a the day prior to a patient's first treatment appointment, and found that this occcurred on time 62% of the time. We utilized the ASCO Quality Training Process (QTP) process to brainstorm methods to enhance workflow, and create an action plan that would allow for small Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to reach our ideal state of > 90% On Time Treatment Plan Delivery. Methods: We utilized LEAN tools from the ASCO QTP progam (June 2016 cycle). We created an Ishikawa diagram to determine the areas of greatest potential. We subsequently developed a highly detailed flow chart of our work processes. Then we utilized Mosaiq scripts to establish baselines for our process measures. Results: From our Ishikawa diagram, the initial most impact was in generate target volume contours after the CT simulation. Our first measure was to visually manage the CT simulation process. We established a computer based quality control list (QCL) to enhance the communication process, and provided a "reminder" at the time of simulation of the target contour delivery date. After collection of data points, there was a significant improvement in on time delivery (now 89%, and approaching the ideal state), as illustrated by our Run Chart, and a coincident decrease in variability between providers and cases was noted in this cohort. Conclusions: Our preliminary change effort is promising, but further data will enhance our findings. Our next steps are to collect an additional two weeks of data, and initiate another PDSA cycle with a new measure of automated reminders from the QCL system. In achieving our project goals and making it sustainable, we believe that we will be providing high quality, high value patient care, while enhancing the healthiness of the work environment for our staff.


2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 238-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick D. Maguire ◽  
Geoff Honaker ◽  
Charles Neal ◽  
Martin Meyerson ◽  
David Morris ◽  
...  

Purpose To evaluate Telesynergy (TS) as a method of interactive treatment planning between academic and community radiation oncology departments. Methods Through a grant from the National Cancer Institute to improve cancer outcomes for underserved populations, community radiation oncologists at New Hanover Regional Medical Center (NHRMC) in Wilmington, North Carolina, partnered with those at the University of North Carolina (UNC) in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. TS suites were installed at both sites to facilitate teleconferencing and review of treatment planning for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer at NHRMC who were enrolled on a clinical trial of chemoirradiation underwent IMRT planning utilizing commercial software. NHRMC physicians contoured tumor targets and adjacent healthy organs. Physics staff at NHRMC generated an initial IMRT plan for each patient. Radiation oncologists at UNC then reviewed individual IMRT plans via TS conferences. Results and Conclusion Between August 2004 and August 2005, seven IMRT plans were reviewed in eight TS conferences. Physician contours of tumor targets and healthy organs, dose volume histograms, IMRT beams, and isodose distributions were shared during each TS conference successfully. Median time for each session was 35 minutes (range, 30 to 75). Physician satisfaction with the interactive planning process was high at both NHRMC and UNC. A cycle would likely evolve of initial intensive use of TS conferences, to gradual use for ongoing quality control, then greater use as the treatment planning technology undergoes its next change. Complex IMRT treatment planning review was feasible between an academic and community hospital via TS with a high level of physician participant satisfaction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document