Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33882253›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021

Clinical use, challenges, and barriers to implementation of deformable image registration in radiotherapy - the need for guidance and QA tools.

Mohammad Hussein, Adeyemi Akintonde, Jamie McClelland, Richard Speight, Catharine H Clark

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Mohammad HusseinMetrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1597-740X
Adeyemi AkintondeCentre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK.
Jamie McClellandCentre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK.
Richard SpeightLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Catharine H ClarkMetrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21993
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the current status of the clinical use of deformable image registration (DIR) in radiotherapy and to gain an understanding of the challenges faced by centres in clinical implementation of DIR, including commissioning and quality assurance (QA), and to determine the barriers faced. The goal was to inform whether additional guidance and QA tools were needed.

methodsA survey focussed on clinical use, metrics used, how centres would like to use DIR in the future and challenges faced, was designed and sent to 71 radiotherapy centres in the UK. Data were gathered specifically on which centres we using DIR clinically, which applications were being used, what commissioning and QA tests were performed, and what barriers were preventing the integration of DIR into the clinical workflow. Centres that did not use DIR clinically were encouraged to fill in the survey and were asked if they have any future plans and in what timescale.

results51 out of 71 (70%) radiotherapy centres responded. 47 centres reported access to a commercial software that could perform DIR. 20 centres already used DIR clinically, and 22 centres had plans to implement an application of DIR within 3 years of the survey. The most common clinical application of DIR was to propagate contours from one scan to another (19 centres). In each of the applications, the types of commissioning and QA tests performed varied depending on the type of application and between centres. Some of the key barriers were determining when a DIR was satisfactory including which metrics to use, and lack of resources.

conclusionThe survey results highlighted that there is a need for additional guidelines, training, better tools for commissioning DIR software and for the QA of registration results, which should include developing or recommending which quantitative metrics to use. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This survey has given a useful picture of the clinical use and lack of use of DIR in UK radiotherapy centres. The survey provided useful insight into how centres commission and QA DIR applications, especially the variability among centres. It was also possible to highlight key barriers to implementation and determine factors that may help overcome this which include the need for additional guidance specific to different applications, better tools and metrics.

Indexed as

Quality Assurance, Health CareHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSoftwareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID33882253
PMCPMC8173691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.