ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Using eclipse scripting to fully automate in-vivo image analysis to improve treatment quality and safety.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using eclipse scripting to fully automate in-vivo image analysis to improve treatment quality and safety.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAn automated, in-vivo system to detect patient anatomy changes and machine output was developed using novel analysis of in-vivo electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images for every fraction of treatment on a Varian Halcyon. In-vivo approach identifies errors that go undetected by routine quality assurance (QA) to compliment daily machine performance check (MPC), with minimal physicist workload.
methodsImages for all fractions treated on a Halcyon were automatically downloaded and analyzed at the end of treatment day. For image analysis, compared to first fraction, the mean difference of high-dose region of interest is calculated. This metric has shown to predict changes in planning treatment volume (PTV) mean dose. Flags are raised for: (Type-A) treatment fraction whose mean difference exceeds 10%, to protect against large errors, and (Type-B) patients with three consecutive fractions with mean exceeding ±3%, to protect against systematic trends. If a threshold is exceeded, a physicist is e-mailed, a report for flagged patients, for investigation. To track machine output changes, for all patients treated on a day, the average and standard deviations are uploaded to a QA portal, along with the reviewed MPC, ensuring comprehensive QA for the Halcyon. To guide clinical implementation, a retrospective study from November 2017 till December 2020 was conducted, which grouped errors by treatment site. This framework has been used prospectively since January 2021.
resultsFrom retrospective data of 1633 patients (35 759 fractions), no Type-A errors were found and only 45 patients (2.76%) had Type-B errors. These Type-B deviations were due to head-and-neck weight loss. For 6 months of prospective use (345 patients), 13 patients (3.7%) had Type-B errors and no Type-A errors.
conclusionsThis automated system protects against errors that can occur in vivo to provide a more comprehensive QA. This fully automated framework can be implemented in other centers with a Halcyon, requiring a desktop computer and analysis scripts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.