Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)
CBCT-based online adaptive radiotherapy (OART) is an emerging treatment strategy to replan based on the anatomy of the day while the patient remains on the couch. OART is not just an add-on to the current workflow; it necessitates a new approach across the patient's path of care, from CT simulation to treatment delivery. OART requires the addition of duties to clinical personnel, strategies to create auto-plan templates, and monitoring the "black box" adaptation process. Studies have shown that OART implementation is limited by its resource-intensive nature and the risks associated with the treatment approach. We hypothesized that the implementation of an interdisciplinary, streamlined workflow and checklists would enhance the OART treatment efficiency, prevent medical errors from the adaptation, and minimize the burden on clinicians.
MATERIALS/METHODS
An interdisciplinary OART working group comprising radiation oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, and therapists was created to enable weekly knowledge sharing, workflow design, implementation, and continuous process improvement. 213 adaptive sessions from 5 treatment sites (pancreas, bladder, prostate, rectum, anus) were treated on a CBCT-based OART platform in a single institutional study. An evaluation of the treatment safety and workflow time was performed for each adaptive session.
RESULTS
The OART workflow was divided into four sub-workflows: 1) pre-treatment site-specific template preparation, 2) pre-treatment initial planning and verification, 3) on-treatment procedure, and 4) post-treatment evaluation. The sub-processes involved 4, 8, 13, and 4 separate, sequentially tasks, respectively, and a total of 11 task checklists. The template preparation is a new process developed for site-specific, standardized physician template directives, automated planning template development, and testing for its accuracy and robustness. The planning templates generated high-quality initial plans automatically within minutes once structures were segmented on the planning CT. This process was replicated during treatment using the CBCT. The median (interquartile range) online procedure time, defined as the time from initial CBCT to plan approval, of the five treatment sites (pancreas, bladder, prostate, rectum, anus) was 22.1 (19.2-24.8) min, 16.5 (15.3-17.5) min, 14.7 (13.9-17.4) min, 17 (15.3-19.7) min, and 24 (21.4-25.8) min, respectively. Safety assessment determined that no treatment deviations were observed.
CONCLUSION
Creating an interdisciplinary, standardized workflow and checklists allowed the safe delivery of OART with clinically feasible online procedure time and significantly reduced initial planning time compared with traditional EBRT. The unique workflow is essential to minimize the burden on the care team, increase patient safety, and access to OART.
Collapse