The Effect of Slice Thickness on Contours of Brain Metastases for Stereotactic Radiosurgery.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic radiosurgery is a common treatment for brain metastases and is typically planned on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, the MR acquisition parameters used for patient selection and treatment planning for stereotactic radiosurgery can vary within and across institutions. In this work, we investigate the effect of MRI slice thickness on the detection and contoured volume of metastatic lesions in the brain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective cohort of 28 images acquired with a slice thickness of 1 mm were resampled to simulate acquisitions at 2- and 3-mm slice thickness. A total of 102 metastases ranging from 0.0030 cc to 5.08 cc (75-percentile 0.36 cc) were contoured on the original images. All 3 sets of images were recontoured by experienced physicians. RESULTS: Of all the images detected and contoured on the 1 mm images, 3% of lesions were missed on the 2 mm images, and 13% were missed on the 3 mm images. One lesion that was identified on both the 2 mm and 3 mm images was determined to be a blood vessel on the 1 mm images. Additionally, the lesions were contoured 11% larger on the 2 mm and 43% larger on the 3 mm images. CONCLUSIONS: Using images with a slice thickness >1 mm effects detection and segmentation of brain lesions, which can have an important effect on patient management and treatment outcomes.

Safety practices, perceptions, and behaviors in radiation oncology: A national survey of radiation therapists.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is complex and demands high vigilance and precise coordination. Radiation therapists (RTTs) directly deliver radiation and are often the first to discover an error. Yet, few studies have examined the practices of RTTs regarding patient safety. We conducted a national survey to explore the perspectives of RTTs related to quality and safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2016, an electronic survey was sent to a random sample of 1500 RTTs in the United States. The survey assessed department safety, error reporting, safety knowledge, and culture. Questions were multiple choice or recorded on a Likert scale. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 702 RTTs from 49 states (47% response rate) completed the survey. Respondents represented a broad distribution across practice settings. Most RTTs rated department patient safety as excellent (61%) or very good (32%), especially if they had an incident learning system (ILS) (odds ratio, 2.0). Only 21% reported using an ILS despite 58% reporting an accessible ILS in their department. RTTs felt errors were most likely to occur with longer shifts and poor multidisciplinary communication; 40% reported that burnout and anxiety negatively affected their ability to deliver care. Workplace bullying was also reported among 17%. Overall, there was interest (62%) in improving knowledge in patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Although most RTTs reported excellent safety cultures within their facilities, overall, there was limited access to and utilization of ILSs by RTTs. Workplace issues identified may also represent barriers to delivering quality care. RTTs were also interested in additional resources regarding quality and safety. These results will further enhance safety initiatives and inform future innovative educational efforts in radiation oncology.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology.

Cancer treatment decisions are complex and may be challenging for patients, as multiple treatment options can often be reasonably considered. As a result, decisional support tools have been developed to assist patients in the decision-making process. A commonly used intervention to facilitate shared decision-making is a decision aid, which provides evidence-based outcomes information and guides patients towards choosing the treatment option that best aligns with their preferences and values. To ensure high quality, systematic frameworks and standards have been proposed for the development of an optimal aid for decision making. Studies have examined the impact of these tools on facilitating treatment decisions and improving decision-related outcomes. In radiation oncology, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that decision aids have the potential to improve patient outcomes, including increased knowledge about treatment options and decreased decisional conflict with decision-making. This article provides an overview of the shared-decision making process and summarizes the development, validation, and implementation of decision aids as patient educational tools in radiation oncology. Finally, this article reviews the findings from decision aid studies in radiation oncology and offers various strategies to effectively implement shared decision-making into clinical practice.

Journey Toward High Reliability: A Comprehensive Safety Program to Improve Quality of Care and Safety Culture in a Large, Multisite Radiation Oncology Department.

BACKGROUND: High-reliability organizations (HROs) focus on continuous identification and improvement of safety issues. We sought to advance a large, multisite radiation oncology department toward high reliability through the implementation of a comprehensive safety culture (SC) program at the University of Pennsylvania Department of Radiation Oncology. METHODS: In 2011, with guidance from safety literature and experts in HROs, we designed an SC framework to reduce radiation errors. All state-reported medical events (SRMEs) from 2009 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and plotted on a control chart. Changes in SC grade were assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey. Outcomes measured included the number of radiation treatment fractions and days between SRMEs, as well as SC grade. RESULTS: Multifaceted safety initiatives were implemented at our main academic center and across all network sites. Postintervention results demonstrate increased staff fundamental safety knowledge, enhanced peer review with an electronic system, and special cause variation of SRMEs on control chart analysis. From 2009 to 2016, the number of days and fractions between SRMEs significantly increased, from a mean of 174 to 541 days (P < .0075) and 21,678 to 113,104 fractions (P < .0028) preintervention and postintervention, respectively. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality results demonstrate a high patient SC grade over time. CONCLUSION: Our journey toward becoming an HRO has led to the development of a robust SC through a comprehensive safety framework. Our multifaceted initiatives, focusing on culture and system changes, can be successfully implemented in a large academic radiation oncology department to yield measurable improvements in SC and outcomes.