Multicentre prospective risk analysis of a fully automated radiotherapy workflow

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Geert De Kerf , Ana Barragán-Montero , Charlotte L. Brouwer , Pietro Pisciotta , Marie-Claude Biston , Marco Fusella , Geoffroy Herbin , Esther Kneepkens , Livia Marrazzo , Joshua Mason , Camila Panduro Nielsen , Koen Snijders , Stephanie Tanadini-Lang , Aude Vaandering , Tomas M. Janssen
{"title":"Multicentre prospective risk analysis of a fully automated radiotherapy workflow","authors":"Geert De Kerf ,&nbsp;Ana Barragán-Montero ,&nbsp;Charlotte L. Brouwer ,&nbsp;Pietro Pisciotta ,&nbsp;Marie-Claude Biston ,&nbsp;Marco Fusella ,&nbsp;Geoffroy Herbin ,&nbsp;Esther Kneepkens ,&nbsp;Livia Marrazzo ,&nbsp;Joshua Mason ,&nbsp;Camila Panduro Nielsen ,&nbsp;Koen Snijders ,&nbsp;Stephanie Tanadini-Lang ,&nbsp;Aude Vaandering ,&nbsp;Tomas M. Janssen","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Purpose</h3><div>Fully automated workflows (FAWs) for radiotherapy treatment preparation are feasible, but remain underutilized in clinical settings. A multicentre prospective risk analysis was conducted to support centres in managing FAW-related risks and to identify workflow steps needing improvement.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>Eight European radiotherapy centres performed a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) on a hypothetical FAW, with a manual review step at the end. Centres assessed occurrence, severity and detectability of provided, or newly added, failure modes to obtain a risk score. Quantitative analysis was performed on curated data, while qualitative analysis summarized free text comments.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Manual review and auto-segmentation were identified as the highest-risk steps and the highest scoring failure modes were associated with inadequate manual review (high detectability and severity score), incorrect (i.e. outside of intended use) application of the FAW (high severity score) and protocol violations during patient preparation (high occurrence score). The qualitative analysis highlighted amongst others the risk of deviation from protocol and the difficulty for manual review to recognize automation errors. The risk associated with the technical parts of the workflow was considered low.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The FMEA analysis highlighted that points where people interact with the FAW were considered higher risk than lack of trust in the FAW itself. Major concerns were the ability of people to correctly judge output in case of low generalizability and increasing skill degradation. Consequently, educational programs and interpretative tools are essential prerequisites for widespread clinical application of FAWs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 100765"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631625000703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Fully automated workflows (FAWs) for radiotherapy treatment preparation are feasible, but remain underutilized in clinical settings. A multicentre prospective risk analysis was conducted to support centres in managing FAW-related risks and to identify workflow steps needing improvement.

Material and Methods

Eight European radiotherapy centres performed a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) on a hypothetical FAW, with a manual review step at the end. Centres assessed occurrence, severity and detectability of provided, or newly added, failure modes to obtain a risk score. Quantitative analysis was performed on curated data, while qualitative analysis summarized free text comments.

Results

Manual review and auto-segmentation were identified as the highest-risk steps and the highest scoring failure modes were associated with inadequate manual review (high detectability and severity score), incorrect (i.e. outside of intended use) application of the FAW (high severity score) and protocol violations during patient preparation (high occurrence score). The qualitative analysis highlighted amongst others the risk of deviation from protocol and the difficulty for manual review to recognize automation errors. The risk associated with the technical parts of the workflow was considered low.

Conclusions

The FMEA analysis highlighted that points where people interact with the FAW were considered higher risk than lack of trust in the FAW itself. Major concerns were the ability of people to correctly judge output in case of low generalizability and increasing skill degradation. Consequently, educational programs and interpretative tools are essential prerequisites for widespread clinical application of FAWs.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.90%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信