Examining the impact of the device used for contouring in saving time and increasing the ease of contouring patients in radiotherapy treatment

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jmir.2024.01.010
Ebrahim Esmati , Reza Ghalehtaki , Marzieh Lashkari , Mohammad Babaei , Amir Saraee , Hamideh Mortazavi , Ehsan Saraee
{"title":"Examining the impact of the device used for contouring in saving time and increasing the ease of contouring patients in radiotherapy treatment","authors":"Ebrahim Esmati ,&nbsp;Reza Ghalehtaki ,&nbsp;Marzieh Lashkari ,&nbsp;Mohammad Babaei ,&nbsp;Amir Saraee ,&nbsp;Hamideh Mortazavi ,&nbsp;Ehsan Saraee","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2024.01.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction/background</h3><p>This study was designed to investigate the amount of time saved and the degree of contour difficulty between the two methods of contouring, mouse/keyboard, versus touch screen/stylus in radiotherapy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Each of 94 patients consisting of 26 breast cancer cases, 24 lymph nodes cases, 25 rectal cancer cases, and 19 heart cases has been contoured twice. One with a mouse/keyboard, and the next one with the touch screen/stylus. Three radiation oncologists participated in this study. Contouring information including measured time, estimated time spent, volume of contour performed and organ contoured are recorded. To evaluate the differences between the contouring methods, the results regarding target volume and time to completion were analyzed using two-way robust ANOVA. Ease of use and contouring difficulty were compared for differences in distribution of the response choices between the groups using Pearson chi-square test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In this study, 94 clinical cases were studied. The average time required for contouring with the touch screen/stylus method was half the time needed for contouring patients with the mouse/keyboard method. The reduction in the time in breast cancer cases was the highest (48.2%) and the lowest in head and neck cancer cases (32.4%). In comparing the contoured volumes, no significant difference was observed between the two methods. the mean estimated time reported by the radiation oncologist in the mouse/keyboard method was 5.6 minutes longer and, in the touch screen/stylus method, was 3.9 minutes less than the actual measured time.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>All the measured and analyzed variables show the superiority of contouring with the touch screen/stylus method and reduced the time required for patient contouring by an average of 50%.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1939865424000110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/background

This study was designed to investigate the amount of time saved and the degree of contour difficulty between the two methods of contouring, mouse/keyboard, versus touch screen/stylus in radiotherapy.

Methods

Each of 94 patients consisting of 26 breast cancer cases, 24 lymph nodes cases, 25 rectal cancer cases, and 19 heart cases has been contoured twice. One with a mouse/keyboard, and the next one with the touch screen/stylus. Three radiation oncologists participated in this study. Contouring information including measured time, estimated time spent, volume of contour performed and organ contoured are recorded. To evaluate the differences between the contouring methods, the results regarding target volume and time to completion were analyzed using two-way robust ANOVA. Ease of use and contouring difficulty were compared for differences in distribution of the response choices between the groups using Pearson chi-square test.

Results

In this study, 94 clinical cases were studied. The average time required for contouring with the touch screen/stylus method was half the time needed for contouring patients with the mouse/keyboard method. The reduction in the time in breast cancer cases was the highest (48.2%) and the lowest in head and neck cancer cases (32.4%). In comparing the contoured volumes, no significant difference was observed between the two methods. the mean estimated time reported by the radiation oncologist in the mouse/keyboard method was 5.6 minutes longer and, in the touch screen/stylus method, was 3.9 minutes less than the actual measured time.

Conclusions

All the measured and analyzed variables show the superiority of contouring with the touch screen/stylus method and reduced the time required for patient contouring by an average of 50%.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究用于轮廓塑造的设备对节省时间和提高放疗病人轮廓塑造方便性的影响。
简介/背景:本研究旨在探讨在放射治疗中,鼠标/键盘与触摸屏/stylus两种轮廓制作方法所节省的时间以及轮廓制作的难度:94 名患者中,包括 26 名乳腺癌患者、24 名淋巴结患者、25 名直肠癌患者和 19 名心脏病患者,每名患者都进行了两次轮廓描绘。一次使用鼠标/键盘,另一次使用触摸屏/触控笔。三位放射肿瘤专家参与了这项研究。研究记录了轮廓测量信息,包括测量时间、估计花费时间、轮廓体积和器官轮廓。为了评估不同轮廓绘制方法之间的差异,我们使用双向稳健方差分析法分析了目标体积和完成时间方面的结果。使用皮尔逊卡方检验比较了各组回答选择分布的易用性和轮廓绘制难度的差异:本研究共调查了 94 个临床病例。使用触摸屏/stylus 方法绘制轮廓所需的平均时间是使用鼠标/键盘方法绘制轮廓所需时间的一半。乳腺癌病例的缩短时间最多(48.2%),头颈部癌症病例的缩短时间最少(32.4%)。在比较轮廓体积时,两种方法之间没有发现明显差异。放射肿瘤学家报告的鼠标/键盘法的平均估计时间比实际测量时间多 5.6 分钟,触摸屏/触控笔法的平均估计时间比实际测量时间少 3.9 分钟:结论:所有测量和分析变量都表明,使用触摸屏/触控笔方法进行轮廓绘制更具优势,患者轮廓绘制所需的时间平均缩短了 50%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
231
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists. This journal is published four times a year and is circulated to approximately 11,000 medical radiation technologists, libraries and radiology departments throughout Canada, the United States and overseas. The Journal publishes articles on recent research, new technology and techniques, professional practices, technologists viewpoints as well as relevant book reviews.
期刊最新文献
A bibliometric analysis on research authorship and collaboration patterns in radiography professional journals: A 10-year review The design and construct a website for collection and report diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in diagnostic radiography Beyond the Machine: A Radiographer's Tale Innovative Learning Activities to Prepare Radiography Students for Final-Year Clinical Placements: An Educational Perspective Enhancing radiation therapy student's cultural competency and safety of Canadian Indigenous populations using cultural immersion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1