RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: With the emergence of imaged-based planning and hybrid applicators the complexity of gynecologic brachytherapy has dramatically increased. Despite the known advantages of brachytherapy, notable national declines in utilization of brachytherapy have been documented. Clearly improved education in the sphere of gynecologic brachytherapy is needed. We hypothesize that a hands-on applicator-based training session would improve trainee comfort with gynecologic brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An in-person, applicator-based, hands-on training session was held with trainees from both radiation and gynecologic oncology programs. Trainees practiced assembling and handling applicators while receiving instruction on clinical scenarios in which various applicators are used in gynecologic cancer brachytherapy. Pre- and post-session, participants were administered an objective test of 10 pictorial-based case vignettes to quantify ability to select the correct applicator based on the interpretation of T2-weighted MR images. Participants additionally received a subjective survey to quantify comfort and experience with gynecologic brachytherapy using Likert-type question formatting. RESULTS: A total of 14 trainees participated. Most common case volume experience was 0-10 intracavitary (57%), 0-10 hybrid (71%), and 0-10 interstitial (71%). Pre-session, the most common answer to comfort level was "not comfortable still learning" for all brachytherapy types, and most common answer to largest gap in knowledge was all facets of brachytherapy. Average case-based test score was 3.5/10 pre-session versus 5.3/10 post-session (pâ¯=â¯0.028). Post-session, all respondents reported improved comfort level with brachytherapy. Post-session, most common answer to largest gap in knowledge was applicator/patient selection, and applicator/patient selection was also the largest area of identified improvement. 100% of participants felt repeating the session in the future would be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Hands-on training with applicators improves both subjective and objective comfort with gynecologic brachytherapy. With 100% of participants requesting to implement this session into resident training, we suggest national opportunities might exist to expand educational processes and improve utilization of complex gynecologic brachytherapy in practice.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: We report the clinical workflow and time required for MRI-based image-guided brachytherapy (MR-IGBT) of cervical cancer patients in a high-volume brachytherapy center with 10 years of experiences to provide a practical guideline for implementing MR-IGBT into clinical use. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We recorded the time and workflow of each procedure step within the 40 consecutive ring and tandem applicator fractions of MR-IGBT by our multidisciplinary team. We divided the entire procedure into four sections based on where the procedure was performed: (1) applicator insertion under sedation, (2) MR imaging, (3) planning, and (4) treatment delivery. In addition, we compared the current procedure time to the initial procedure time when first implementing MR-IGBT in 2007-2008 via a retrospective review. RESULTS: Mean total procedure time was 149.3 min (SD 17.9, ranges 112-178). The multidisciplinary team included an anesthesia team, radiologist, radiation oncologist, nurses, radiation therapists, MRI technicians, dosimetrists, and physicists. The mean procedure time and ranges for each section (min) were as follows: (1) 56.2 (28.0-103.0), (2) 31.0 (19.0-70.0), (3) 44.3 (21.0-104.0), and (4) 17.8 (9.0-34.0). Under current setting, the combined mean procedure time for MR imaging and planning was 63.2 min. In comparison, the same procedure took 137.7 min in 2007-2008 period, which was significantly longer than the current workflow (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A skilled and dedicated multidisciplinary team is required for an efficient clinical workflow and delivery of MR-IGBT. Over the years, we have improved efficiency with clinical experience and continuous efforts in staff education.
