PURPOSE: The recently published AAPM TG-275 and the public review version of TG-315 list new recommendations for comprehensive and minimum physics initial chart checks, respectively. This article addresses the potential development and benefit of initial chart check automation when these recommendations are implemented for clinical photon/electron EBRT. METHODS: Eight board-certified physicists with 2-20 years of clinical experience performed initial chart checks using checklists from TG-275 and TG-315. Manual check times were estimated for three types of plans (IMRT/VMAT, 3D, and 2D) and for prostate, whole pelvis, lung, breast, head and neck, and brain cancers. An expert development team of three physicists re-evaluated the automation feasibility of TG-275 checklist based on their experience of developing and implementing the in-house and the commercial automation tools in our institution. Three levels of initial chart check automation were simulated: (1) Auto_UMMS_tool (which consists of in-house program and commercially available software); (2) Auto_TG275 (with full and partial automation as indicated in TG-275); and (3) Auto_UMMS_exp (with full and partial automation as determined by our experts' re-evaluation). RESULTS: With no automation of initial chart checks, the ranges of manual check times were 29-56 min (full TG-315 list) and 102-163 min (full TG-275 list), which varied significantly with physicists but varied little at different tumor sites. The 69 of 71 checks which were considered as "not fully automated" in TG-275 were re-evaluated with more automation feasibility. Compared to no automation, the higher levels of automation yielded a great reduction in both manual check times (by 44%-98%) and potentially residual detectable errors (by 15-85%). CONCLUSION: The initial chart check automation greatly improves the practicality and efficiency of implementing the new TG recommendations. Revisiting the TG reports with new technology/practice updates may help develop and utilize more automation clinically.
PURPOSE: The recently published AAPM TG-275 and the public review version of TG-315 list new recommendations for comprehensive and minimum physics initial chart checks, respectively. This article addresses the potential development and benefit of initial chart check automation when these recommendations are implemented for clinical photon/electron EBRT. METHODS: Eight board-certified physicists with 2-20 years of clinical experience performed initial chart checks using checklists from TG-275 and TG-315. Manual check times were estimated for three types of plans (IMRT/VMAT, 3D, and 2D) and for prostate, whole pelvis, lung, breast, head and neck, and brain cancers. An expert development team of three physicists re-evaluated the automation feasibility of TG-275 checklist based on their experience of developing and implementing the in-house and the commercial automation tools in our institution. Three levels of initial chart check automation were simulated: (1) Auto_UMMS_tool (which consists of in-house program and commercially available software); (2) Auto_TG275 (with full and partial automation as indicated in TG-275); and (3) Auto_UMMS_exp (with full and partial automation as determined by our experts' re-evaluation). RESULTS: With no automation of initial chart checks, the ranges of manual check times were 29-56 min (full TG-315 list) and 102-163 min (full TG-275 list), which varied significantly with physicists but varied little at different tumor sites. The 69 of 71 checks which were considered as "not fully automated" in TG-275 were re-evaluated with more automation feasibility. Compared to no automation, the higher levels of automation yielded a great reduction in both manual check times (by 44%-98%) and potentially residual detectable errors (by 15-85%). CONCLUSION: The initial chart check automation greatly improves the practicality and efficiency of implementing the new TG recommendations. Revisiting the TG reports with new technology/practice updates may help develop and utilize more automation clinically.
Authors: G Guidi; N Maffei; B Meduri; E D'Angelo; G M Mistretta; P Ceroni; A Ciarmatori; A Bernabei; S Maggi; M Cardinali; V E Morabito; F Rosica; S Malara; A Savini; G Orlandi; C D'Ugo; F Bunkheila; M Bono; S Lappi; C Blasi; F Lohr; T Costi Journal: Phys Med Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Fatemeh Azmandian; David Kaeli; Jennifer G Dy; Elizabeth Hutchinson; Marek Ancukiewicz; Andrzej Niemierko; Steve B Jiang Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Elizabeth L Covington; Xiaoping Chen; Kelly C Younge; Choonik Lee; Martha M Matuszak; Marc L Kessler; Wayne Keranen; Eduardo Acosta; Ashley M Dougherty; Stephanie E Filpansick; Jean M Moran Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Joseph M Dewhurst; Matthew Lowe; Mark J Hardy; Christopher J Boylan; Philip Whitehurst; Carl G Rowbottom Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Todd F Atwood; Narottam Lamichhane; Krisha Howell; Stephanie E Weiss; Louise Bird; Charles Pearson; Michael C Joiner; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 2.243