Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34007910›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2021

Take Action Protocol: A radiation therapist led approach to act on anatomical changes seen on CBCT.

Monica Buijs, Floris Pos, Marloes Frantzen-Steneker, Maddalena Rossi, Peter Remeijer, Folkert Koetsveld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Towards proton therapy guidelines for radiation therapists and dosimetrists: A scoping review.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Proton beam therapy image-guided radiotherapy training for RTTs - Experience from a single institution.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Advanced practice in radiotherapy: How to move to the next level?Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Monica BuijsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Floris PosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marloes Frantzen-StenekerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Maddalena RossiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Peter RemeijerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Folkert KoetsveldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Until recently Traffic Light Protocols (TLP) have been developed to recognize and react to Anatomical Changes (ACs) seen on Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) scans for the most common treatment sites. This involves alerting the Radiation Oncologist (RO), handing over findings, and RO providing the final decision, making it quite labour-intensive for the ROs as well as the Radiation Therapists (RTTs). A new approach was developed to act on ACs: the Take Action Protocol (TAP). In this protocol the RTTs do not only have a role in detecting ACs, but also decide on the appropriate action and follow up, resulting in a significant shift in responsibility. In this study we present the TAP and evaluated the benefit and outcomes of the implementation of TAP compared to the TLP. During a pilot period of six months the TAP was applied for 34 bladder and prostate patients. In 2 bladder and 6 prostate patients further decision making by an RO was required (compared to all 34 in the TLP), showing a large reduction in workload. ACs were accurately assessed by RTTs in >99% of the cases. In 5/34 patients RTTs specialized in Image Guided Radiotherapy provided additional instructions to improve accurate use of the TAP. Two surveys conducted by both ROs and RTTs on the TLP and TAP showed that the perceived involvement of the ROs and burden of responsibility for RTTs was comparable between the two protocols. The identification of patients with truly clinical relevant ACs and the adaptation of treatment for the remaining fractions improved according to ROs and RTTs responses. The TAP provides a better balance between workload and efficiency in relation to the clinical relevance of acting on ACs.

Indexed as

Anatomical changesCBCTRTT ledTake action protocolTraffic light protocol

Identifiers

PMID34007910
PMCPMC8110944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.