Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24658604›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2014

Protection of quality and innovation in radiation oncology: the prospective multicenter trial QUIRO of DEGRO: evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during radiotherapy with tomotherapy.

Cornelia Winkler, M N Duma, W Popp, H Sack, V Budach, M Molls, S Kampfer

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Cornelia WinklerDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany, c.winkler@lrz.tu-muenchen.de.
M N Duma
W Popp
H Sack
V Budach
M Molls
S Kampfer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe technical progress in radiotherapy in recent years has been tremendous. This also implies a change of human and time resources. However, there is a lack of data on this topic. Therefore, the DEGRO initiated several studies in the QUIRO project on this subject. The present publication focuses on results for tomotherapy systems and compares them with other IMRT techniques.

methodsOver a period of several months, time allocation was documented using a standard form at two university hospitals. The required time for individual steps in the treatment planning process was recorded for all involved professional groups (physicist, technician, and physician) by themselves. The time monitoring at the treatment machines was performed by auxiliary employees (student research assistants). Evaluation of the data was performed for all recorded data as well as by tumor site. A comparison was made between the two involved institutions.

resultsA total of 1,691 records were analyzed: 148 from head and neck (H&N) tumors, 460 from prostate cancer, 136 from breast cancer, and 947 from other tumor entities. The mean value of all data from both centers for the definition of the target volumes for H&N tumors took a radiation oncology specialist 75 min, while a physicist needed for the physical treatment planning 214 min. For prostate carcinomas, the times were 60 and 147 min, respectively, and for the group of other entities 63 and 192 min, respectively. For the first radiation treatment, the occupancy time of the linear accelerator room was 31, 26, and 30 min for each entity (H&N, prostate, other entities, respectively). For routine treatments 22, 18, and 21 min were needed for the particular entities. Major differences in the time required for the individual steps were observed between the two centers.

conclusionThis study gives an overview of the time and personnel requirements in radiation therapy using a tomotherapy system. The most representative analysis could be done for the room occupancy times during treatment in both centers. Due to the partly small amount of data and differing planning workflows between the two centers, it is problematic to draw a firm conclusion with regard to planning times. Overall, the time required for the tomotherapy treatment and planning is slightly higher compared to other IMRT techniques.

Indexed as

Time and Motion StudiesGermanyHospitalizationHumansMedical StaffNeoplasmsPatients' RoomsProspective StudiesRadiation OncologyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedUtilization ReviewWorkload

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.