全自动放疗工作流程的多中心前瞻性风险分析

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":"全自动放疗工作流程的多中心前瞻性风险分析","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景和有目的的自动化工作流程(FAWs)用于放射治疗准备是可行的,但在临床环境中仍未得到充分利用。进行了多中心前瞻性风险分析,以支持各中心管理与fai有关的风险,并确定需要改进的工作流程步骤。材料和方法8个欧洲放疗中心对假设的FAW进行了失效模式和效应分析(FMEA),最后进行了人工审查步骤。中心评估提供的或新增加的故障模式的发生、严重程度和可检测性,以获得风险评分。定量分析是对整理好的数据进行的,而定性分析是对自由文本评论进行的总结。结果人工审查和自动分割被认为是风险最高的步骤,得分最高的失败模式与人工审查不充分(高可检测性和严重程度评分)、FAW应用不正确(即超出预期用途)(高严重程度评分)和患者准备期间违反协议(高发生率评分)相关。定性分析特别强调了偏离协议的风险以及人工审查识别自动化错误的难度。与工作流的技术部分相关的风险被认为很低。FMEA分析强调,人们与FAW互动的点被认为比对FAW本身缺乏信任的风险更高。主要关注的是人们在低通用性和技能退化的情况下正确判断输出的能力。因此,教育计划和解释性工具是FAWs广泛临床应用的必要先决条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multicentre prospective risk analysis of a fully automated radiotherapy workflow

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
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
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