ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Complex and expanding data sets in clinical oncology applications require flexible and interactive visualization of patient data to provide the maximum amount of information to physicians and other medical practitioners. Interdisciplinary tumor conferences in particular profit from customized tools to integrate, link, and visualize relevant data from all professions involved. OBJECTIVE: The scoping review proposed in this protocol aims to identify and present currently available data visualization tools for tumor boards and related areas. The objective of the review will be to provide not only an overview of digital tools currently used in tumor board settings, but also the data included, the respective visualization solutions, and their integration into hospital processes. METHODS: The planned scoping review process is based on the Arksey and O'Malley scoping study framework. The following electronic databases will be searched for articles published in English: PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and SCOPUS. Eligible articles will first undergo a deduplication step, followed by the screening of titles and abstracts. Second, a full-text screening will be used to reach the final decision about article selection. At least 2 reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text reports. Conflicting inclusion decisions will be resolved by a third reviewer. The remaining literature will be analyzed using a data extraction template proposed in this protocol. The template includes a variety of meta information as well as specific questions aiming to answer the research question: "What are the key features of data visualization solutions used in molecular and organ tumor boards, and how are these elements integrated and used within the clinical setting?" The findings will be compiled, charted, and presented as specified in the scoping study framework. Data for included tools may be supplemented with additional manual literature searches. The entire review process will be documented in alignment with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) flowchart. RESULTS: The results of this scoping review will be reported per the expanded PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A preliminary search using PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Scopus resulted in 1320 articles after deduplication that will be included in the further review process. We expect the results to be published during the second quarter of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Visualization is a key process in leveraging a data set's potentially available information and enabling its use in an interdisciplinary setting. The scoping review described in this protocol aims to present the status quo of visualization solutions for tumor board and clinical oncology applications and their integration into hospital processes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/53627.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In molecular tumor boards (MTBs), patients with rare or advanced cancers are discussed by a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals. Software support for MTBs is lacking; in particular, tools for preparing and documenting MTB therapy recommendations need to be developed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to implement an extension to cBioPortal to provide a tool for the documentation of therapy recommendations from MTB sessions in a secure and standardized manner. The developed extension should be embedded in the patient view of cBioPortal to enable easy documentation during MTB sessions. The resulting architecture for storing therapy recommendations should be integrable into various hospital information systems. METHODS: On the basis of a requirements analysis and technology analysis for authentication techniques, a prototype was developed and iteratively refined through a user-centered development process. In conclusion, the tool was evaluated via a usability evaluation, including interviews, structured questionnaires, and the System Usability Scale. RESULTS: The patient view of cBioPortal was extended with a new tab that enables users to document MTB sessions and therapy recommendations. The role-based access control was expanded to allow for a finer distinction among the rights to view, edit, and delete data. The usability evaluation showed overall good usability and a System Usability Scale score of 83.57. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how cBioPortal can be extended to not only visualize MTB patient data but also be used as a documentation platform for therapy recommendations.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To demonstrate a quantitative approach to measuring fluid volumes with standard single shot RARE sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In phantom experiments, magnetic resonance hydrometry (MRH), in combination with various calibration phantoms (5 mL up to 500 mL) as internal standards, was used to quantify fluid volumes. In total, 16 volume phantoms were investigated with six different calibration phantoms. In addition, noise correction was implemented to correct the quantification results and to avoid the influence of random noise in the image. RESULTS: All MR measurements show significant correlations of up to r = 0.99 (P <.05) with the real applied volume in the investigated phantoms. However, measurements of large volumes were more precise with large calibration phantoms. Noise reduction did not change the correlation between measured and real applied volumes, but did reduce the error of the measured volumes. Calibrated magnetic resonance hydrometry (cMRH) is able to quantify volumes of fluid fast and noninvasively. The volumes of the used calibration phantoms have to be at least in the order of magnitude of the volumes that are to be measured. CONCLUSION: In vitro, cMRH using a single-shot rapid acquisition with refocused echoes (ssRARE) sequence and calibration phantoms is a fast and accurate method of quantifying steady amounts of fluid.
Subject(s)
Body Fluids , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Algorithms , Phantoms, ImagingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate magnetic resonance hydrometry for the calculation of bladder volume. The reference standard to assess bladder volume is urethral catheterization, which may be linked with the risk of trauma and infection. Hence, ultrasonography is the preferred diagnostic method. However, ultrasonography is investigator dependent and inaccurate in the hands of an inexperienced operator. METHODS: Investigations were performed in a 1.0-Tesla clinical scanner with a manufacturer-provided single-shot turbo spin-echo sequence. We examined 30 healthy volunteers (21 males and 9 females) with a mean age of 26.4 years. To quantify the volume of fluid in a magnetic resonance image, a histogram algorithm was used and a calibration phantom applied. Prevoid and postvoid images were acquired. The bladder volume was calculated as the difference between the prevoid and postvoid image fluid volumes. The magnetic resonance-calculated data were compared with the actually voided volumes. RESULTS: The measured voided bladder volume was 400 +/- 33 mL, whereas magnetic resonance hydrometry yielded 390 +/- 31 mL. The difference between both measurements was not statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval for the difference of both measurements ranged from -22.6 to 2.4 mL. The regression had an r2 of 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of magnetic resonance hydrometry to quantify the bladder volume noninvasively was demonstrated.
