全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Implementation of Level-3 Autonomous Patient-Specific Quality Assurance with Automated Human Interactive Devices

DOI: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2023.124009, PP. 99-113

Keywords: Level-3 Automation, Patient-Specific Quality Assurance, Human Interactive Devices, Scripting

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Purpose: Patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) requires manual operation of different workstations, which is time-consuming and error-prone. Therefore, developing automated solutions to improve efficiency and accuracy is a priority. The purpose of this study was to develop a general software interface with scripting on a human interactive device (HID) for improving the efficiency and accuracy of manual quality assurance (QA) procedures. Methods: As an initial application, we aimed to automate our PSQA workflow that involves Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, Elekta MOSAIQ oncology information system and PTW Verisoft application. A general platform, the AutoFrame interface with two imbedded subsystemsthe AutoFlow and the PyFlow, was developed with a scripting language for automating human operations of aforementioned systems. The interface included three functional modules: GUI module, UDF script interpreter and TCP/IP communication module. All workstations in the PSQA process were connected, and most manual operations were automated by AutoFrame sequentially or in parallel. Results: More than 20 PSQA tasks were performed both manually and using the developed AutoFrame interface. On average, 175 (±12) manual operations of the PSQA procedure were eliminated and performed by the automated process. The time to complete a PSQA task was 8.23 (±0.78) minutes for the automated workflow, in comparison to 13.91 (±3.01) minutes needed for manual operations. Conclusion: We have developed the AutoFrame interface framework that successfully automated our PSQA procedure, and significantly reduced the time, human (control/clicking/typing) errors, and operators’ stress. Future work will focus on improving the system’s flexibility and stability and extending its operations to other QA procedures.

References

[1]  Saiful Huq, M., Fraass, B.A., Dunscombe, P.B., et al. (2016) The Report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Radiation Therapy Quality Management. Medical Physics, 43, 4209-4262.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4947547
[2]  Alfredo Siochi, R., Balter, P., Bloch, C.D., et al. (2021) Report of Task Group 201 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Quality Management of External Beam Therapy Data Transfer. Medical Physics, 48, e86-e114.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14868
[3]  Leal, A., Sánchez-Doblado, F., Arráns, R., Roselló, J., Pavón, E.C. and Lagares, J.I. (2003) Routine IMRT Verification by Means of an Automated Monte Carlo Simulation System. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 56, 58-68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00067-1
[4]  Miften, M., Olch, A., Mihailidis, D., et al. (2018) Tolerance Limits and Methodologies for IMRT Measurement-Based Verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Medical Physics, 45, e53-e83.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12810
[5]  Low, D.A. and Dempsey, J.F. (2003) Evaluation of the Gamma Dose Distribution Comparison Method. Medical Physics, 30, 2455-2464.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1598711
[6]  Pawlicki, T., Yoo, S., Court, L.E., et al. (2008) Moving from IMRT QA Measurements toward Independent Computer Calculations Using Control Charts. Radiotherapy & Oncology, 89, 330-337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.002
[7]  Pawlicki, T., Yoo, S., Court, L.E., et al. (2008) Process Control Analysis of IMRT QA: Implications for Clinical Trials. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 53, 5193-5205.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/18/023
[8]  Zhang, J.Q., Ahunbay, E. and Li, X.A. (2018) Technical Note: Acceleration of Online Adaptive Replanning with Automation and Parallel Operations. Medical Physics, 45, 4370-4376.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13106
[9]  Synopsys (2023) The 6 Levels of Vehicle Autonomy Explained.
https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html
[10]  Hussein, M., Adams, E.J., Jordan, T.J., Clark, C.H. and Nisbet, A. (2013) A Critical Evaluation of the PTW 2D-ARRAY Seven29 and OCTAVIUS II Phantom for IMRT and VMAT Verification. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 14, 274-292.
https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4460
[11]  Das, S., Kharade, V., Pandey, V.P., Kv, A., Pasricha, R.K. and Gupta, M. (2022) Gamma Index Analysis as a Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Tool for High-Precision Radiotherapy: A Clinical Perspective of Single Institute Experience. Cureus, 14, e30885.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.30885
[12]  Di Muzio, M., Dionisi, S., Simone, E.D., et al. (2019) Can Nurses’ Shift Work Jeopardize the Patient Safety? A Systematic Review. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 23, 4507-4519.
https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_201905_17963

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133