SafetyNet: Streamlining and Automating QA in radiotherapy.

Proper quality assurance (QA) of the radiotherapy process can be time-consuming and expensive. Many QA efforts, such as data export and import, are inefficient when done by humans. Additionally, humans can be unreliable, lose attention, and fail to complete critical steps that are required for smooth operations. In our group we have sought to break down the QA tasks into separate steps and to automate those steps that are better done by software running autonomously or at the instigation of a human. A team of medical physicists and software engineers worked together to identify opportunities to streamline and automate QA. Development efforts follow a formal cycle of writing software requirements, developing software, testing and commissioning. The clinical release process is separated into clinical evaluation testing, training, and finally clinical release. We have improved six processes related to QA and safety. Steps that were previously performed by humans have been automated or streamlined to increase first-time quality, reduce time spent by humans doing low-level tasks, and expedite QA tests. Much of the gains were had by automating data transfer, implementing computer-based checking and automation of systems with an event-driven framework. These coordinated efforts by software engineers and clinical physicists have resulted in speed improvements in expediting patient-sensitive QA tests.

Patients with progression of spinal metastases who present to the clinic have better outcomes compared to those who present to the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: As cancer therapies have improved, spinal metastases are increasingly common. Resulting complications have a significant impact on patient's quality of life. Optimal methods of surveillance and avoidance of neurologic deficits are understudied. This study compares the clinical course of patients who initially presented to the emergency department (ED) versus a multidisciplinary spine oncology clinic and who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) secondary to progression/presentation of metastatic spine disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of adult oncologic patients who underwent spinal SBRT at a single hospital from 2010 to 2021. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 498 spinal radiographic treatment sites in 390 patients. Of these patients, 118 (30.3%) presented to the ED. Patients presenting to the ED compared to the clinic had significantly more severe spinal compression (52.5% vs. 11.7%; p < 0.0001), severe pain (28.8% vs. 10.3%; p < 0.0001), weakness (24.5% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.0001), and difficulty walking (24.5% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.0001). Patients who presented to the ED compared to the clinic were significantly more likely to have surgical intervention followed by SBRT (55.4% vs. 15.3%; p < 0.0001) compared to SBRT alone. Patients who presented to the ED compared to the clinic had a significantly quicker interval to distant spine progression (5.1 ± 6.5 vs. 9.1 ± 10.2 months; p = 0.004), systemic progression (5.1 ± 7.2 vs. 9.2 ± 10.7 months; p < 0.0001), and worse overall survival (9.3 ± 10.0 vs. 14.3 ± 13.7 months; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The establishment of multidisciplinary spine oncology clinics is an opportunity to potentially allow for earlier, more data-driven treatment of their spinal metastatic disease.

Big data analysis of associations between patient reported outcomes, observer reported toxicities, and overall quality of life in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To assess associations between a variety of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), observer reported toxicities (ORTs), and patient-reported overall quality of life (QOL) for head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy, in order to identify important items for inclusion in prospective patient reporting in the clinic. METHODS: 612 patients completed 27 PRO items from three questionnaires at 1273 follow-up visits, and clinicians provided ORTs according to CTCAE criteria. Using a big data approach, we measured associations among all PROs, between all PROs and ORTs, and between PROs/ORTs and QOL with Pearson (ρ) and Kendall (τ) correlation coefficients, and a novel analysis method based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves used to detect thresholds in response levels demonstrating strong interactions. RESULTS: PROs most strongly associated with QOL were recreation/entertainment, activity, and fatigue, with ρ = 0.51-0.60. Several PROs assessing a common functional outcome (eg. xerostomia) were highly associated with each other (PRO-PRO), with maximum ρ = 0.84. Maximum ORT-PRO correlations were ρ = 0.61 (dysgeusia versus taste), and ρ = 0.5 for ORT-QOL (dry mouth - day). The ROC method identified response thresholds with high area under the curve (AUC) scores for many ORT-PRO associations with maximum AUCavg = 0.78. CONCLUSIONS: PRO associations identified activity, lifestyle and fatigue as items for strong consideration for inclusion in questionnaires in the clinic, and suggest that outcome information can be captured in fewer items than the 27 in this study. The ability of clinicians to assess patient toxicities is highest with more severe toxicities, underscoring the need for PRO collection in patient visits to understand and address patient symptoms.

The big data effort in radiation oncology: Data mining or data farming?

Although large volumes of information are entered into our electronic health care records, radiation oncology information systems and treatment planning systems on a daily basis, the goal of extracting and using this big data has been slow to emerge. Development of strategies to meet this goal is aided by examining issues with a data farming instead of a data mining conceptualization. Using this model, a vision of key data elements, clinical process changes, technology issues and solutions, and role for professional societies is presented. With a better view of technology, process and standardization factors, definition and prioritization of efforts can be more effectively directed.