RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: While there is evidence to show the positive effects of automation, the impact on radiation oncology professionals has been poorly considered. This study examined radiation oncology professionals' perceptions of automation in radiotherapy planning. METHOD: An online survey link was sent to the chief radiation therapists (RT) of all Australian radiotherapy centres to be forwarded to RTs, medical physicists (MP) and radiation oncologists (RO) within their institution. The survey was open from May-July 2019. RESULTS: Participants were 204 RTs, 84 MPs and 37 ROs (response rates â¼10% of the overall radiation oncology workforce). Respondents felt automation resulted in improvement in consistency in planning (90%), productivity (88%), quality of planning (57%), and staff focus on patient care (49%). When asked about perceived impact of automation, the responses were; will change the primary tasks of certain jobs (66%), will allow staff to do the remaining components of their job more effectively (51%), will eliminate jobs (20%), and will not have an impact on jobs (6%). 27% of respondents believe automation will reduce job satisfaction. 71% of respondents strongly agree/agree that automation will cause a loss of skills, while only 25% strongly agree/agree that the training and education tools in their department are sufficient. CONCLUSION: Although the effect of automation is perceived positively, there are some concerns on loss of skillsets and the lack of training to maintain this. These results highlight the need for continued education to ensure that skills and knowledge are not lost with automation.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The use of MRI is becoming more prevalent in cervical cancer external beam radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of dosimetric differences between CT and MRI-derived target volumes for cervical cancer external beam RT. METHODS: An automated planning technique for volumetric modulated arc therapy was developed. Two automated planning plans were generated for 18 cervical cancer patients where planning target volumes (PTVs) were generated based on CT or MRI data alone. Dose metrics for planning target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were compared to analyse any differences based on imaging modality. RESULTS: All treatment plans were clinically acceptable. Bladder doses (V40) were lower in MRI-based plans (p = 0.04, 53.6 ± 17.2 % vs 60.3 ± 13.1 % for MRI vs CT, respectively). The maximum dose for left iliac crest showed lower doses in CT-based plans (p = 0.02, 47.8 ± 0.7 Gy vs 47.4 ± 0.4 Gy MRI vs CT, respectively). No significant differences were seen for other OARs. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric differences of CT- and MRI-based contouring variability for this study was small. CT remains the standard imaging modality for volume delineation for these patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first study to evaluate the dosimetric implications of imaging modality on target and OAR doses in cervical cancer external beam RT.