Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40926731›Full record

SynthesisMedical physics2025

Systematic review of prospective hazard analysis in radiation therapy.

Jonathan Hindmarsh, Sonja Dieterich, Jeremy Booth, Paul Keall

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A prospective hazard analysis of real-time adaptive helical tomotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
    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

4 authors.

Jonathan HindmarshImage X Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, New South Wales, Australia.
Sonja DieterichDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California, USA.
Jeremy BoothNorthern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Paul KeallImage X Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council APP1194004Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProspective hazard analysis (PHA) was introduced to the wider medical physics community by the initiation of American association of physicists in medicine task group 100 in 2003. Since then, there has been increasing interest in the applicability of PHA to radiotherapy for the purpose of keeping patients safe and assessing the risks within the whole practice of radiotherapy. The purpose of this research was to review the PHA literature focusing on which techniques and technologies have been assessed, how they have been assessed, and what can be learnt.

methodsThe search for English language, peer-reviewed, full-text articles was conducted across five databases and the citations of three seminal papers using a common search strategy. The collation, filtration, and analysis of articles was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement reporting standard utilizing the following PICOS approach: Population: x-ray external beam radiation therapy, Intervention: prospective hazard analysis, Comparison: none, Outcome: patient safety, Study characteristics: details of applied technique.

results689 unique studies were identified. 62 were determined to be eligible for inclusion. PHA has been applied to C-arm treatment systems (17), stereotactic radiosurgery (8), TomoTherapy (6), stereotactic body radiotherapy (5), Ethos (5), Halcyon (3), MRIdian (3), review activities (3), commissioning (2), unity (1), volumetric modulated arc therapy (1), surface guidance (1), CyberKnife (1), RefleXion (1) and other novel software and hardware systems (6). Disciplines involved in the studies were physicists (92%), physicians (75%), radiation therapists or dosimetrists (71%), external experts (38%), and facilitators (33%). Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used in 75% of studies, 10% used FMEA derived methods, 10% used system theoretic process analysis, and 5% used other methods. From the FMEA studies, 579 high-risk failure modes were extracted covering all aspects of the radiotherapy process, 50% applied to patient treatment delivery sessions and 25% applied to contouring and treatment planning. The mitigation strategies recommended by studies tended to add to the departmental workload.

conclusions62 studies were identified that used PHA in radiotherapy, within the included studies: patient journey was the most analyzed process, of the disciplines physicists were involved in the most studies, FMEA the most common technique, and the delivery of patient treatment was the greatest source of high-risk failure modes.

Indexed as

RadiotherapyHumansPatient SafetyProspective StudiesRisk Assessmentfailure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)hazardhigh‐risk failure modesrisksafetysystem theoretic process analysis (STPA)TG‐100

Identifiers

PMID40926731
PMCPMC12421374

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.