Clinical physicists' perceptions of weekly chart checks and the potential role for automated image review assessed by structured interviews.

BACKGROUND: This study utilizes interviews of clinical medical physicists to investigate self-reported shortcomings of the current weekly chart check workflow and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: Nineteen medical physicists were recruited for a 30-minute semi-structured interview, with a particular focus placed on image review and the use of automated tools for image review in weekly checks. Survey-type questions were used to gather quantitative information about chart check practices and importance placed on reducing chart check workloads versus increasing chart check effectiveness. Open-ended questions were used to probe respondents about their current weekly chart check workflow, opinions of the value of weekly chart checks and perceived shortcomings, and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of automated chart check tools. Thematic analysis was used to develop common themes across the interviews. RESULTS: Physicists ranked highly the value of reducing the time spent on weekly chart checks (average 6.3 on a scale from 1 to 10), but placed more value on increasing the effectiveness of checks with an average of 9.2 on a 1-10 scale. Four major themes were identified: (1) weekly chart checks need to adapt to an electronic record-and-verify chart environment, (2) physicists could add value to patient care by analyzing images without duplicating the work done by physicians, (3) greater support for trending analysis is needed in weekly checks, and (4) automation has the potential to increase the value of physics checks. CONCLUSION: This study identified several key shortcomings of the current weekly chart check process from the perspective of the clinical medical physicist. Our results show strong support for automating components of the weekly check workflow in order to allow for more effective checks that emphasize follow-up, trending, failure modes and effects analysis, and allow time to be spent on other higher value tasks that improve patient safety.

Barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation of radiotherapy treatment planning automation: A survey study of medical dosimetrists.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the scale of clinical implementation of automated treatment planning techniques in the United States. In this work, we examine the barriers and facilitators to adoption of commercially available automated planning tools into the clinical workflow using a survey of medical dosimetrists. METHODS/MATERIALS: Survey questions were developed based on a literature review of automation research and cognitive interviews of medical dosimetrists at our institution. Treatment planning automation was defined to include auto-contouring and automated treatment planning. Survey questions probed frequency of use, positive and negative perceptions, potential implementation changes, and demographic and institutional descriptive statistics. The survey sample was identified using both a LinkedIn search and referral requests sent to physics directors and senior physicists at 34 radiotherapy clinics in our state. The survey was active from August 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: Thirty-four responses were collected out of 59 surveys sent. Three categories of barriers to use of automation were identified. The first related to perceptions of limited accuracy and usability of the algorithms. Eighty-eight percent of respondents reported that auto-contouring inaccuracy limited its use, and 62% thought it was difficult to modify an automated plan, thus limiting its usefulness. The second barrier relates to the perception that automation increases the probability of an error reaching the patient. Third, respondents were concerned that automation will make their jobs less satisfying and less secure. Large majorities reported that they enjoyed plan optimization, would not want to lose that part of their job, and expressed explicit job security fears. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the first systematic investigation into the views of automation by medical dosimetrists. Potential barriers and facilitators to use were explicitly identified. This investigation highlights several concrete approaches that could potentially increase the translation of automation into the clinic, along with areas of needed research.

Automated detection of vertebral body misalignments in orthogonal kV and MV guided radiotherapy: application to a comprehensive retrospective dataset.

Objective. In image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), off-by-one vertebral body misalignments are rare but potentially catastrophic. In this study, a novel detection method for such misalignments in IGRT was investigated using densely-connected convolutional networks (DenseNets) for applications towards real-time error prevention and retrospective error auditing.Approach. A total of 4213 images acquired from 527 radiotherapy patients aligned with planar kV or MV radiographs were used to develop and test error-detection software modules. Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) and setup images were retrieved and co-registered according to the clinically applied alignment contained in the DICOM REG files. A semi-automated algorithm was developed to simulate patient positioning errors on the anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) images shifted by one vertebral body. A DenseNet architecture was designed to classify either AP images individually or AP and LAT image pairs. Receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC) and areas under the curves (AUC) were computed to evaluate the classifiers on test subsets. Subsequently, the algorithm was applied to the entire dataset in order to retrospectively determine the absolute off-by-one vertebral body error rate for planar radiograph guided RT at our institution from 2011-2021.Main results. The AUCs for the kV models were 0.98 for unpaired AP and 0.99 for paired AP-LAT. The AUC for the MV AP model was 0.92. For a specificity of 95%, the paired kV model achieved a sensitivity of 99%. Application of the model to the entire dataset yielded a per-fraction off-by-one vertebral body error rate of 0.044% [0.0022%, 0.21%] for paired kV IGRT including one previously unreported error.Significance. Our error detection algorithm was successful in classifying vertebral body positioning errors with sufficient accuracy for retrospective quality control and real-time error prevention. The reported positioning error rate for planar radiograph IGRT is unique in being determined independently of an error reporting system.

Development and multi-institutional validation of a convolutional neural network to detect vertebral body mis-alignments in 2D x-ray setup images.

BACKGROUND: Misalignment to the incorrect vertebral body remains a rare but serious patient safety risk in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). PURPOSE: Our group has proposed that an automated image-review algorithm be inserted into the IGRT process as an interlock to detect off-by-one vertebral body errors. This study presents the development and multi-institutional validation of a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based approach for such an algorithm using patient image data from a planar stereoscopic x-ray IGRT system. METHODS: X-rays and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were collected from 429 spine radiotherapy patients (1592 treatment fractions) treated at six institutions using a stereoscopic x-ray image guidance system. Clinically-applied, physician approved, alignments were used for true-negative, "no-error" cases. "Off-by-one vertebral body" errors were simulated by translating DRRs along the spinal column using a semi-automated method. A leave-one-institution-out approach was used to estimate model accuracy on data from unseen institutions as follows: All of the images from five of the institutions were used to train a CNN model from scratch using a fixed network architecture and hyper-parameters. The size of this training set ranged from 5700 to 9372 images, depending on exactly which five institutions were contributing data. The training set was randomized and split using a 75/25 split into the final training/ validation sets. X-ray/ DRR image pairs and the associated binary labels of "no-error" or "shift" were used as the model input. Model accuracy was evaluated using images from the sixth institution, which were left out of the training phase entirely. This test set ranged from 180 to 3852 images, again depending on which institution had been left out of the training phase. The trained model was used to classify the images from the test set as either "no-error" or "shifted", and the model predictions were compared to the ground truth labels to assess the model accuracy. This process was repeated until each institution's images had been used as the testing dataset. RESULTS: When the six models were used to classify unseen image pairs from the institution left out during training, the resulting receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values ranged from 0.976 to 0.998. With the specificity fixed at 99%, the corresponding sensitivities ranged from 61.9% to 99.2% (mean: 77.6%). With the specificity fixed at 95%, sensitivities ranged from 85.5% to 99.8% (mean: 92.9%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the CNN-based vertebral body misalignment model is robust when applied to previously unseen test data from an outside institution, indicating that this proposed additional safeguard against misalignment is feasible.

Development and interinstitutional validation of an automatic vertebral-body misalignment error detector for cone-beam CT-guided radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided radiotherapy, off-by-one vertebral-body misalignments are rare but serious errors that lead to wrong-site treatments. PURPOSE: An automatic error detection algorithm was developed that uses a three-branch convolutional neural network error detection model (EDM) to detect off-by-one vertebral-body misalignments using planning computed tomography (CT) images and setup CBCT images. METHODS: Algorithm training and test data consisted of planning CTs and CBCTs from 480 patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment in the thoracic and abdominal regions at two radiotherapy clinics. The clinically applied registration was used to derive true-negative (no error) data. The setup and planning images were then misaligned by one vertebral-body in both the superior and inferior directions, simulating the most likely misalignment scenarios. For each of the aligned and misaligned 3D image pairs, 2D slice pairs were automatically extracted in each anatomical plane about a point within the vertebral column. The three slice pairs obtained were then inputted to the EDM that returned a probability of vertebral misalignment. One model (EDM1 ) was trained solely on data from institution 1. EDM1 was further trained using a lower learning rate on a dataset from institution 2 to produce a fine-tuned model, EDM2 . Another model, EDM3 , was trained from scratch using a training dataset composed of data from both institutions. These three models were validated on a randomly selected and unseen dataset composed of images from both institutions, for a total of 303 image pairs. The model performances were quantified using a receiver operating characteristic analysis. Due to the rarity of vertebral-body misalignments in the clinic, a minimum threshold value yielding a specificity of at least 99% was selected. Using this threshold, the sensitivity was calculated for each model, on each institution's test set separately. RESULTS: When applied to the combined test set, EDM1 , EDM2 , and EDM3 resulted in an area under curve of 99.5%, 99.4%, and 99.5%, respectively. EDM1 achieved a sensitivity of 96% and 88% on Institution 1 and Institution 2 test set, respectively. EDM2 obtained a sensitivity of 95% on each institution's test set. EDM3 achieved a sensitivity of 95% and 88% on Institution 1 and Institution 2 test set, respectively. CONCLUSION: The proposed algorithm demonstrated accuracy in identifying off-by-one vertebral-body misalignments in CBCT-guided radiotherapy that was sufficiently high to allow for practical implementation. It was found that fine-tuning the model on a multi-facility dataset can further enhance the generalizability of the algorithm.

Metastasis, Mortality, and Quality of Life for Men With NCCN High and Very High Risk Localized Prostate Cancer After Surgical and/or Combined Modality Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) of men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high or very high risk prostate cancer after definitive surgery and/or multimodal radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort study of 586 patients treated between the years 2000 and 2017 receiving radical prostatectomy with or without postoperative RT, external-beam RT (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (Brachy) boost + ADT. Patient-reported QOL for urinary, bowel, sexual, and overall physical and mental functioning was assessed using the American Urological Association symptom scale, the Sexual Health Inventory in Men, the Rectal-Function Assessment Scale, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey. RESULTS: Median follow-up for survival was 5 years. No significant differences between the treatments were observed for overall survival or metastasis-free survival at the P < .05 threshold. The propensity-adjusted 5-year metastasis-free survival estimates for EBRT + ADT, EBRT + Brachy + ADT, and surgery were 74.6%, 94.8%, and 83.1%, respectively. The EBRT + Brachy + ADT and surgery cohorts had significantly worse mean American Urological Association symptom scores at 6 months than the EBRT + ADT cohort, which resolved by 1 year. Surgical patients had better rectal function scores than EBRT + ADT patients at years 1 to 3, but similar function thereafter. Adjuvant or salvage RT resulted in significant declines in various Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary, sexual, and bowel domains, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical but not mental domains. CONCLUSION: Men with very and/or high-risk localized prostate cancer are likely to require multimodal therapy. The overall differences in survival and long-term QOL are similar for men choosing surgical versus RT pathways.