将交通灯协议作为 IGRT 通信机制的橙色代码

Dylan Callens , Rob De Haes , Jan Verstraete , Patrick Berkovic , An Nulens , Truus Reynders , Maarten Lambrecht , Wouter Crijns
{"title":"将交通灯协议作为 IGRT 通信机制的橙色代码","authors":"Dylan Callens ,&nbsp;Rob De Haes ,&nbsp;Jan Verstraete ,&nbsp;Patrick Berkovic ,&nbsp;An Nulens ,&nbsp;Truus Reynders ,&nbsp;Maarten Lambrecht ,&nbsp;Wouter Crijns","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Traffic-light protocols (TLPs) use color codes to standardize image registration and improve interdisciplinary communication in IGRT. Generally, green indicates no relevant anatomical changes, orange signals changes requiring follow-up but does not compromise the current fraction, and red flags unacceptable changes. This study examines the communication aspect, specifically the reporting accuracy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), and identifies barriers to reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Materials &amp; Methods</h3><div>We conducted a retrospective study on 1997 CBCTs from 74 LA-NSCLC patients. Each scan was in retrospect assessed blinded using the tailored TLP by an IGRT-RTT and subsequently by a second RTT for a subset of fractions. The assessment included both CBCTs from current clinical practice (TLP<sub>2023</sub>) and from the TLP implementation period (TLP<sub>2019</sub>). Accuracy of image registration was not evaluated. Reporting barriers were identified through focus group discussions with RTTs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During TLP<sub>2023</sub>, 22 of the 63 (35%) patients received at least one code orange during therapy, with 2 of them having a systematic code orange, totaling 43 (2%) fractions with at least one code orange. The IGRT-RTT assigned code orange or red in 59 (94%) patients, 38 (60%) of which had systematic codes orange. In total, the IGRT-RTT reported 684 (40%) fractions with code orange and 13 with code red. During TLP<sub>2019</sub>, similar numbers are observed. In the subset reviewed by two IGRT-RTTs, reports matched in 77% of cases. Various factors contribute to a low reporting rate, originating both during the decision-making process such as lack of online reporting tools and within offline processes such as divergent feedback expectations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While our TLP has successfully promoted the widespread adoption of CBCT-based RTT-led IGRT, it has not succeeded in establishing interdisciplinary communication. Our study reveals significant underreporting of flagged LA-NSCLC fractions in clinical practice using a TLP. This underreporting stems from multifactorial origins.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT\",\"authors\":\"Dylan Callens ,&nbsp;Rob De Haes ,&nbsp;Jan Verstraete ,&nbsp;Patrick Berkovic ,&nbsp;An Nulens ,&nbsp;Truus Reynders ,&nbsp;Maarten Lambrecht ,&nbsp;Wouter Crijns\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Traffic-light protocols (TLPs) use color codes to standardize image registration and improve interdisciplinary communication in IGRT. Generally, green indicates no relevant anatomical changes, orange signals changes requiring follow-up but does not compromise the current fraction, and red flags unacceptable changes. This study examines the communication aspect, specifically the reporting accuracy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), and identifies barriers to reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Materials &amp; Methods</h3><div>We conducted a retrospective study on 1997 CBCTs from 74 LA-NSCLC patients. Each scan was in retrospect assessed blinded using the tailored TLP by an IGRT-RTT and subsequently by a second RTT for a subset of fractions. The assessment included both CBCTs from current clinical practice (TLP<sub>2023</sub>) and from the TLP implementation period (TLP<sub>2019</sub>). Accuracy of image registration was not evaluated. Reporting barriers were identified through focus group discussions with RTTs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During TLP<sub>2023</sub>, 22 of the 63 (35%) patients received at least one code orange during therapy, with 2 of them having a systematic code orange, totaling 43 (2%) fractions with at least one code orange. The IGRT-RTT assigned code orange or red in 59 (94%) patients, 38 (60%) of which had systematic codes orange. In total, the IGRT-RTT reported 684 (40%) fractions with code orange and 13 with code red. During TLP<sub>2019</sub>, similar numbers are observed. In the subset reviewed by two IGRT-RTTs, reports matched in 77% of cases. Various factors contribute to a low reporting rate, originating both during the decision-making process such as lack of online reporting tools and within offline processes such as divergent feedback expectations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While our TLP has successfully promoted the widespread adoption of CBCT-based RTT-led IGRT, it has not succeeded in establishing interdisciplinary communication. Our study reveals significant underreporting of flagged LA-NSCLC fractions in clinical practice using a TLP. This underreporting stems from multifactorial origins.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000532\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言交通灯协议(TLP)使用颜色代码来规范图像登记并改善 IGRT 的跨学科交流。一般来说,绿色表示没有相关的解剖变化,橙色表示需要随访但不影响当前分数的变化,红色表示不可接受的变化。本研究探讨了沟通方面的问题,特别是局部晚期非小细胞肺癌(LA-NSCLC)的报告准确性,并找出了报告的障碍。每次扫描都由一名 IGRT-RTT 使用定制的 TLP 进行盲法评估,随后由第二名 RTT 对部分分数进行评估。评估包括当前临床实践中的 CBCT(TLP2023)和 TLP 实施期间的 CBCT(TLP2019)。未对图像登记的准确性进行评估。结果在TLP2023期间,63名患者中有22名(35%)在治疗过程中至少收到一次橙色代码,其中2名患者收到系统性橙色代码,总共有43个(2%)分段收到至少一次橙色代码。IGRT-RTT为59例(94%)患者分配了橙色或红色代码,其中38例(60%)有系统性橙色代码。IGRT-RTT 总共报告了 684 次(40%)有橙色代码的分次,13 次有红色代码。在 TLP2019 期间,也观察到了类似的数字。在两个 IGRT-RTT 审查的子集中,77% 的病例报告相符。导致报告率低的因素有很多,既有决策过程中的因素,如缺乏在线报告工具,也有离线过程中的因素,如对反馈的不同期望。我们的研究揭示了在临床实践中使用 TLP 时对标记的 LA-NSCLC 分数的严重漏报。这种漏报源于多种因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT

Introduction

Traffic-light protocols (TLPs) use color codes to standardize image registration and improve interdisciplinary communication in IGRT. Generally, green indicates no relevant anatomical changes, orange signals changes requiring follow-up but does not compromise the current fraction, and red flags unacceptable changes. This study examines the communication aspect, specifically the reporting accuracy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), and identifies barriers to reporting.

Materials & Methods

We conducted a retrospective study on 1997 CBCTs from 74 LA-NSCLC patients. Each scan was in retrospect assessed blinded using the tailored TLP by an IGRT-RTT and subsequently by a second RTT for a subset of fractions. The assessment included both CBCTs from current clinical practice (TLP2023) and from the TLP implementation period (TLP2019). Accuracy of image registration was not evaluated. Reporting barriers were identified through focus group discussions with RTTs.

Results

During TLP2023, 22 of the 63 (35%) patients received at least one code orange during therapy, with 2 of them having a systematic code orange, totaling 43 (2%) fractions with at least one code orange. The IGRT-RTT assigned code orange or red in 59 (94%) patients, 38 (60%) of which had systematic codes orange. In total, the IGRT-RTT reported 684 (40%) fractions with code orange and 13 with code red. During TLP2019, similar numbers are observed. In the subset reviewed by two IGRT-RTTs, reports matched in 77% of cases. Various factors contribute to a low reporting rate, originating both during the decision-making process such as lack of online reporting tools and within offline processes such as divergent feedback expectations.

Conclusion

While our TLP has successfully promoted the widespread adoption of CBCT-based RTT-led IGRT, it has not succeeded in establishing interdisciplinary communication. Our study reveals significant underreporting of flagged LA-NSCLC fractions in clinical practice using a TLP. This underreporting stems from multifactorial origins.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
期刊最新文献
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review A systematic review of prostate bed motion and anisotropic margins in post-prostatectomy external beam radiotherapy International virtual radiation therapy professional development: Reflections on a twinning collaboration between a low/middle and high income country A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
×
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