Dataset Information

Linear accelerator utilization: Concept and tool to aid the scheduling of patients for radiotherapy

ABSTRACT: Highlights • Linacs were fully booked already three weeks before a majority of investigated days.• Non-treatment events were scheduled ≤ 11% for the investigated time period.• Planned booking scenarios deviated from real scenarios for most investigated days.• Largest changes were primarily related to linac downtime/maintenance issues.• Tool visualizing linac utilization may aid staff to achieve an even RT workflow.

Background and purpose

Resources in radiotherapy (RT) need to be used effectively to meet the current clinical demand. The aim of this data-driven study is to identify temporal trends in the scheduling of patients for RT and to develop a tool for a visual overview of future scheduling levels.

Material and methods

Scheduling data at an eight-linac modern RT department in Sweden were collected twice daily for planned and observed linac use in 2018–2020. Information was retrieved each day for the present (Day 0) and the forthcoming 100 weekdays with total linac utilization rates (LURs) calculated for two activity categories: treatment and non-treatment. An in-house tool based on the LUR concept, database queries from the oncology information system (OIS)/automatic calculations was developed and evaluated by RT managers and scheduling staff (n = 10).

Results

Overall median LURs were 87%/89% (planned/observed; p < 0.01) with more frequent and larger daily increase for non-treatment activities compared with treatment activities. LUR increased with shorter planning horizons and reached 100% for fully-operating linacs ≈3 weeks before Day 0. The tool was reported by 88% to ease the work and to contribute towards an even scheduling of patients (responses: 8/10).

Conclusion

Alterations from a planned RT schedule occurs frequently. Having a tool that helps to reduce the abundance of booking information into clinically relevant overviews promise to increase the understanding of present and future scheduling levels. Our proposed concept and tool suggest that this is a feasible approach to schedule patients for RT more evenly.

SUBMITTER: Lindberg J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8531843 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionParaspinal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) involves risks of severe complications. We evaluated the safety of the paraspinal SBRT program in a large academic hospital by applying failure modes and effects analysis.MethodsThe analysis was conducted by a multidisciplinary committee (two therapists, one dosimetrist, four physicists, and two radiation oncologists). The paraspinal SBRT workflow was segmented into four phases (simulation, treatment planning, delivery, and machine quality assurance (QA)). Each phase was further divided into a sequence of sub-processes. Potential failure modes (PFM) were identified from each subprocess and scored in terms of the frequency of occurrence, severity and detectability, and a risk priority number (RPN). High-risk PFMs were identified based on RPN and were studied for root causes using fault tree analysis.ResultsOur paraspinal SBRT process was characterized by eight simulations, 11 treatment planning, nine delivery, and two machine QA sub-processes. There were 18, 29, 19, and eight PFMs identified from simulation, planning, treatment, and machine QA, respectively. The median RPN of the PFMs was 62.9 for simulation, 68.3 for planning, 52.9 for delivery, and 22.0 for machine QA. The three PFMs with the highest RPN were: previous radiotherapy outside the institution is not accurately evaluated (RPN: 293.3), incorrect registration between diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and simulation computed tomography causing incorrect contours (273.0), and undetected patient movement before ExacTrac baseline (217.8). Remedies to the high RPN failures were implemented, including staff education, standardized magnetic resonance imaging acquisition parameters, and an image fusion process, and additional QA on beam steering.ConclusionsA paraspinal SBRT workflow in a large clinic was evaluated using a multidisciplinary and systematic risk analysis, which led to feasible solutions to key root causes. Treatment planning was a major source of PFMs that systematically affect the safety and quality of treatments. Accurate evaluation of external treatment records remains a challenge.

Project description:BackgroundEvery week, radiotherapy centers face the complex task of scheduling hundreds of treatment sessions amongst the available linear accelerators. With the increase in cancer patient numbers, manually creating a feasible and efficient schedule has shown to be a difficult, time-consuming task. Although operations research models have been increasingly reported upon to optimize patient care logistics, there is almost no scientific evidence of implementation in practice.MethodsA mathematical operations research model was adapted to generate radiotherapy treatment schedules in two Dutch centers. The model was iteratively adjusted to fulfill the technical and medical constraints of each center until a valid model was attained. Patient data was collected for the planning horizon of one week, and the feasibility of the obtained schedules was verified by the staff of each center. The resulting optimized solutions are compared with the ones manually developed in practice.ResultsThe weekly schedule was improved in both centers by decreasing the average standard deviation between sessions' starting times from 103.0 to 50.4 minutes (51%) in one center, and the number of gaps in the schedule from 18 to 5 (72%) in the other. The number of patients requiring linac switching between sessions has also decreased from 71 to 0 patients in one center, and from 43 to 2 in the other. The automated process required 5 minutes and 1.5 hours of computation time to find an optimal weekly patient schedule, respectively, as opposed to approximately 1.5 days when performed manually for both centers.ConclusionsThe practical application of a theoretical operations research model for radiotherapy treatment scheduling has provided radiotherapy planners a feasible, high-quality schedule in an automated way. Iterative model adaptations performed in small steps, early engagement of stakeholders, and constant communication proved to facilitate the implementation of operations research models into clinical practice.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop and test a set of illustrated instructions for effective training for mechanical quality assurance (QA) of medical linear accelerators (linac).MethodsIllustrated instructions were created for mechanical QA and underwent several steps of review, testing, and refinement. Eleven testers with no recent QA experience were then recruited from our radiotherapy department (one student, two computational scientists, and eight dosimetrists). This group was selected because they have experience of radiation therapy but no preconceived ideas about how to do QA. The following parameters were progressively decalibrated on a Varian C-series linac: Group A = gantry angle, ceiling laser position, X1 jaw position, couch longitudinal position, physical graticule position (five testers); Group B = Group A + wall laser position, couch lateral and vertical position, collimator angle (three testers); Group C = Group B + couch angle, wall laser angle, and optical distance indicator (three testers). Testers were taught how to use the linac and then used the instructions to try to identify these errors. An experienced physicist observed each session, giving support on machine operation as necessary.ResultsTesters were able to follow the instructions. They determined gantry, collimator, and couch angle errors within 0.4°, 0.3°, and 0.9° of the actual changed values, respectively. Laser positions were determined within 1 mm and jaw positions within 2 mm. Couch position errors were determined within 2 mm and 3 mm for lateral/longitudinal and vertical errors, respectively. Accessory-positioning errors were determined within 1 mm. Optical distance indicator errors were determined within 2 mm when comparing with distance sticks and 6 mm when using blocks, indicating that distance sticks should be the preferred approach for inexperienced staff.ConclusionsInexperienced users were able to follow these instructions and catch errors within the criteria suggested by AAPM TG-142 for linacs used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. These instructions are, therefore, suitable for QA training.

Project description:Variations in candidate and donor acceptance criteria may influence access and mortality for liver transplantation. We sought to understand how recipient and donor characteristics vary across centers and how patients interpret this information, and we used these data to develop a tool to provide tailored information to candidates seeking a center (www.transplantcentersearch.org). We analyzed liver recipient data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to determine how recipient and donor characteristics (eg, age, Medicaid use, and human immunodeficiency virus status) varied across programs. Data included recipients and donors at each US program between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The variation in characteristics was plotted with centers stratified by total transplant volume and by volume of each characteristic. A subset of characteristics was plotted to show variation over 3 years. We created mockups of potential reports displaying recipient characteristics alongside pretransplant and posttransplant outcomes and solicited feedback at patient and family interviews and focus groups, which included 39 individuals: 10 pilot interviews with candidates seeking liver transplant at the University of Minnesota-Fairview (UMNF) and 5 focus groups with 13 UMNF candidates, 6 UMNF family members, and 10 national recipients. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged: (1) Candidates experience gaps in existing education about center options; (2) patients requested information about how selection criteria might impact access to transplant; and (3) information tailored to a candidate's medical characteristics can inform decisions. Characteristics shown on mockups varied across centers (P < 0.01). Variation was widespread for small and large centers. In conclusion, variation exists in recipient and donor characteristics across centers. Liver transplant patients provide positive feedback upon viewing patient-specific search tools.