Modern palliative radiation treatment: do complexity and workload contribute to medical errors?

PURPOSE: To examine whether treatment workload and complexity associated with palliative radiation therapy contribute to medical errors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the setting of a large academic health sciences center, patient scheduling and record and verification systems were used to identify patients starting radiation therapy. All records of radiation treatment courses delivered during a 3-month period were retrieved and divided into radical and palliative intent. "Same day consultation, planning and treatment" was used as a proxy for workload and "previous treatment" and "multiple sites" as surrogates for complexity. In addition, all planning and treatment discrepancies (errors and "near-misses") recorded during the same time frame were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: There were 365 new patients treated with 485 courses of palliative radiation therapy. Of those patients, 128 (35%) were same-day consultation, simulation, and treatment patients; 166 (45%) patients had previous treatment; and 94 (26%) patients had treatment to multiple sites. Four near-misses and 4 errors occurred during the audit period, giving an error per course rate of 0.82%. In comparison, there were 10 near-misses and 5 errors associated with 1100 courses of radical treatment during the audit period. This translated into an error rate of 0.45% per course. An association was found between workload and complexity and increased palliative therapy error rates. CONCLUSIONS: Increased complexity and workload may have an impact on palliative radiation treatment discrepancies. This information may help guide the necessary recommendations for process improvement for patients who require palliative radiation therapy.

Autocontouring and manual contouring: which is the better method for target delineation using 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer?

UNLABELLED: Previously, we showed that a CT window and level setting of 1,600 and -300 Hounsfield units, respectively, and autocontouring using an (18)F-FDG PET 50% intensity level correlated best with pathologic results. The aim of this study was to compare this autocontouring with manual contouring, to determine which method is better. METHODS: Seventeen patients with non-small cell lung cancer underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT before surgery. The maximum diameter on pathologic examination was determined. Seven sets of gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were defined. The first set (GTV(CT)) was contoured manually using only CT information. The second set (GTV(Auto)) was autocontoured using a 50% intensity level for (18)F-FDG PET images. The third set (GTV(Manual)) was manually contoured using a visual method on PET images. The other 4 sets combined CT and (18)F-FDG PET images fused to one another to become composite volumes: GTV(CT+Auto), GTV(CT+Manual), GTV(CT-Auto), and GTV(CT-Manual). To quantitate the degree to which CT and (18)F-FDG PET defined the same region of interest, a matching index was calculated for each case. The maximum diameter of GTV was compared with the maximum diameter on pathologic examination. RESULTS: The median GTV(CT), GTV(Auto), GTV(Manual), GTV(CT+Auto), GTV(CT+Manual), GTV(CT-Auto), and GTV(CT-Manual) were 6.96, 2.42, 4.37, 7.46, 10.17, 2.21, and 3.38 cm(3), respectively. The median matching indexes of GTV(CT) versus GTV(CT+Auto), GTV(Auto) versus GTV(CT+Auto), GTV(CT) versus GTV(CT+Manual), and GTV(Manual) versus GTV(CT+Manual) were 0.86, 0.65, 0.88, and 0.81, respectively. Compared with the maximum diameter on pathologic examination, the correlations of GTV(CT), GTV(Auto), GTV(Manual), GTV(CT+Auto), and GTV(CT+Manual) were 0.87, 0.83, 0.93, 0.86, and 0.94, respectively. CONCLUSION: The matching index was higher for manual contouring than for autocontouring using a 50% intensity level on (18)F-FDG PET images. When using a 50% intensity level to contour the target of non-small cell lung cancer, one should also consider using manual contouring of (18)F-FDG PET to check for any missed disease.

PET CT thresholds for radiotherapy target definition in non-small-cell lung cancer: how close are we to the pathologic findings?

PURPOSE: Optimal target delineation threshold values for positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) radiotherapy planning is controversial. In this present study, different PET CT threshold values were used for target delineation and then compared pathologically. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 31 non-small-cell lung cancer patients underwent PET CT before surgery. The maximal diameter (MD) of the pathologic primary tumor was obtained. The CT-based gross tumor volumes (GTV(CT)) were delineated for CT window-level thresholds at 1,600 and -300 Hounsfield units (HU) (GTV(CT1)); 1,600 and -400 (GTV(CT2)); 1,600 and -450 HU (GTV(CT3)); 1,600 and -600 HU (GTV(CT4)); 1,200 and -700 HU (GTV(CT5)); 900 and -450 HU (GTV(CT6)); and 700 and -450 HU (GTV(CT7)). The PET-based GTVs (GTV(PET)) were autocontoured at 20% (GTV(20)), 30% (GTV(30)), 40% (GTV(40)), 45% (GTV(45)), 50% (GTV(50)), and 55% (GTV(55)) of the maximal intensity level. The MD of each image-based GTV in three-dimensional orientation was determined. The MD of the GTV(PET) and GTV(CT) were compared with the pathologically determined MD. RESULTS: The median MD of the GTV(CT) changed from 2.89 (GTV(CT2)) to 4.46 (GTV(CT7)) as the CT thresholds were varied. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT) compared with the pathologically determined MD ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT1) was the best (r=0.87). The median MD of GTV(PET) changed from 5.72 cm to 2.67 cm as the PET thresholds increased. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(PET) compared with the pathologic finding ranged from 0.51 to 0.77. The correlation coefficient of GTV(50) was the best (r=0.77). CONCLUSION: Compared with the MD of GTV(PET), the MD of GTV(CT) had better correlation with the pathologic MD. The GTV(CT1) and GTV(50) had the best correlation with the pathologic results.

Effectiveness of educational intervention on the congruence of prostate and rectal contouring as compared with a gold standard in three-dimensional radiotherapy for prostate.

PURPOSE: To examine effects of a teaching intervention on precise delineation of the prostate and rectum during planning of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A pretest, posttest, randomized controlled group design was used. During pretest all participants contoured prostate and rectum on planning CT. Afterward, they participated in two types of workshops. The experimental group engaged in an interactive teaching session focused on prostate and rectum MR anatomy compared with CT anatomy. The control group focused on 3D-CRT planning without mention of prostate or rectal contouring. The experimental group practiced on fused MR-CT images, whereas the control group practiced on CT images. All participants completed the posttest. RESULTS: Thirty-one trainees (12 male, 19 female) were randomly assigned to two groups, 17 in the experimental arm, and 14 in the control group. Seventeen felt familiar or very familiar with pelvic organ contouring, 12 somewhat, and 2 had never done it. Thirteen felt confident with organ contouring, 13 somewhat, and 5 not confident. The demographics and composition of groups were analyzed with chi(2) and repeated-measures analysis of variance with the two groups (experimental or control) and two tests (pre- or posttest) as factors. Satisfaction with the course and long-term effects of the course on practice were assessed with immediate and delayed surveys. All performance variables showed a similar pattern of results. CONCLUSIONS: The training sessions improved the technical performance similarly in both groups. Participants were satisfied with the course content, and the delayed survey reflected that cognitively participants felt more confident with prostate and rectum contouring and would investigate opportunities to learn more about organ contouring.