ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Longitudinal evaluation of workflow optimization in radiotherapy: A 4-year retrospective study.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Semantic Modeling to Precision Radiotherapy: An AI Framework Linking Radiobiology, Oncology, and Public Health Integration.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Longitudinal evaluation of workflow optimization in radiotherapy: A 4-year retrospective study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEfficient workflows are essential for timely, high-quality radiotherapy. In 2020, an internal audit identified key workflow bottlenecks, including long patient wait times, suboptimal treatment planning, and inadequate quality control. Accordingly, since early 2021, we implemented targeted workflow improvements to address these deficiencies. PURPOSE: This retrospective study evaluated the impact of workflow optimization from 2021 to 2024, focusing on operational and clinical metrics.
methodsThe radiotherapy workflow includes patient admission, imaging (CT/MR simulation), treatment planning, multi-level quality assurance, plan transfer, and first radiation delivery. Optimization measures included AI-assisted tumor contouring, standardized planning protocols, dynamic scheduling, automated quality control, and predictive maintenance using machine learning. Data from 25 838 patients were analyzed, examining wait times, planning durations, and quality control efficiency.
resultsThe total admission-to-treatment duration decreased by 30%, from 12.83 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 9.48-16.98) pre-2020 to 8.78 days (IQR = 3.72-10.48) in 2021, stabilizing at 9.34 days (IQR = 4.27-12.01) by 2024. CT/MR simulation preparation time increased from 2.24 days (IQR = 1.24-2.17) to 3.82 days (IQR = 1.47-4.65). Treatment planning preparation time decreased significantly from 5.75 days (IQR = 3.85-7.02) to 2.57 days (IQR = 1.48-3.42). Treatment planning duration also decreased from 2.68 days (IQR = 2.07-2.87) to 1.33 days (IQR = 0.91-1.84). A new physics review stage, introduced in 2021, required 0.04 days (IQR = 0.01-0.04) in 2024. Clinical review time decreased from 0.78 days (IQR = 0.38-0.98) pre-2020 to 0.46 days (IQR = 0.06-0.80) in 2024. Plan transfer time reduced from 0.42 days (IQR = 0.11-0.66) to 0.24 days (IQR = 0.05-0.28). The preparation time for the first radiation delivery decreased from 2.48 days (IQR = 1.84-3.27) to 0.81 days (IQR = 0.22-1.06).
conclusionWorkflow optimization yielded sustained improvements in radiotherapy efficiency, safety, and patient satisfaction, highlighting the impact of AI-driven tools, standardized workflows, and data-driven management in advancing global radiotherapy practices.
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.