ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Developing an automatic treatment record review system for quality assurance of patient treatment delivery in radiation therapy.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeTreatment record contains most of information related to treatment plan delivery in radiation therapy. Reviewing treatment record is an important quality assurance (QA) task for safety and quality of patient treatments. This task is usually performed by senior medical physicists. However, it is time-consuming, tedious, and error-prone. To assist this process, a treatment record review system (TRRS) is developed to automatically review items related to treatment delivery record.
methodsThe treatment record is firstly extracted from oncology information system (OIS). Based on the daily patient treatment information, the original plan from the treatment planning system is identified. Then the original plan and the delivered plan are correlated. Eight review categories (parameter consistency, treatment completeness, treatment progression, image guidance, override, treatment couch, documentation, and treatment mode) are created. Tailored rules are designed for various review items to automate the review process. As a result, for each daily treatment record, a reviewed flag (pass, failure, warning, and N/A) is assigned by the TRRS. Finally, this system is evaluated by 6 months patient treatment records collected in our institute and compared to the manual process on the same data.
resultsTRRS processed a total of 76,651 treatment fractions from 4230 patients with an average of 574 treatments per day. The percentage of the detected anomalies among the total records was 0.76%. The average processing time was 3.9 s and 282 s per treatment record for the automatic and manual processes, respectively. Comparing with the manual process, the time efficiency of TRRS is improved by a factor of 72. The average numbers of anomalies detected by the automatic and manual processes are 21 and 13 per day, respectively. TRRS detects 61.5% more anomalies than those of the manual process.
conclusionTRRS is not only efficient in processing a large amount of treatment records on a daily basis but also effective in finding more anomalies than those of physics weekly check. The application of the TRRS could significantly reduce the workload of the review physicists and let them focus on more important works related to patient safety.
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.