{"title":"影像引导放射治疗中放射技师和放射肿瘤学家位置匹配精度的评价","authors":"Tatsuya Yoshida, Tomoki Hayakawa, Toshiyuki Kawadai, Takako Shibasaki, Kazuya Nagata, Tetsuya Aoki","doi":"10.6009/jjrt.25-1585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The promotion of task-shifting and task-sharing to facilitate work style reform for physicians has enabled radiological technologists (RTs) to perform primary matching in image-guided radiotherapy. The purpose in this study is to evaluate the position matching accuracy of RTs and radiation oncologist (ROs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Position matching was performed by four RTs and two ROs (RO-A and B). To evaluate the accuracy of the observer's position matching, five cases each were identified for the head, neck, chest, and pelvic regions in two-dimension planar images (2D/2D), and for the prostate in three-dimensional (3D) images (CBCT). Manual position matching was performed using the offline matching of the position matching analysis software at a position moved by 3-7 mm in the XYZ directions from the treatment position at the time of treatment. Inter-observer position matching accuracy was evaluated by calculating the difference between the treatment position and the matching position, and by calculating a 3D vector from the above difference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The differences between the irradiation position and the reference position were within ±1.0 mm for 2D/2D and within ±1.5 mm for CBCT for the four RTs, while the maximum differences for RO-A were 3.0 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively. For 3D vectors, in 2D/2D, the values for four RTs and RO-B were 0.1-0.6 mm, compared to RO-A was 1.2-1.7 mm, and in CBCT, the values for four RTs were 0.3-0.7 mm, compared to the two ROs' were 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The position matching accuracy of our RTs was not inferior to that of ROs, confirming that primary matching by RTs is clinically acceptable.</p>","PeriodicalId":74309,"journal":{"name":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","volume":"81 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Evaluation of the Position Matching Accuracy for Radiological Technologists and Radiation Oncologists in Image-guided Radiation Therapy].\",\"authors\":\"Tatsuya Yoshida, Tomoki Hayakawa, Toshiyuki Kawadai, Takako Shibasaki, Kazuya Nagata, Tetsuya Aoki\",\"doi\":\"10.6009/jjrt.25-1585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The promotion of task-shifting and task-sharing to facilitate work style reform for physicians has enabled radiological technologists (RTs) to perform primary matching in image-guided radiotherapy. The purpose in this study is to evaluate the position matching accuracy of RTs and radiation oncologist (ROs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Position matching was performed by four RTs and two ROs (RO-A and B). To evaluate the accuracy of the observer's position matching, five cases each were identified for the head, neck, chest, and pelvic regions in two-dimension planar images (2D/2D), and for the prostate in three-dimensional (3D) images (CBCT). Manual position matching was performed using the offline matching of the position matching analysis software at a position moved by 3-7 mm in the XYZ directions from the treatment position at the time of treatment. Inter-observer position matching accuracy was evaluated by calculating the difference between the treatment position and the matching position, and by calculating a 3D vector from the above difference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The differences between the irradiation position and the reference position were within ±1.0 mm for 2D/2D and within ±1.5 mm for CBCT for the four RTs, while the maximum differences for RO-A were 3.0 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively. For 3D vectors, in 2D/2D, the values for four RTs and RO-B were 0.1-0.6 mm, compared to RO-A was 1.2-1.7 mm, and in CBCT, the values for four RTs were 0.3-0.7 mm, compared to the two ROs' were 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The position matching accuracy of our RTs was not inferior to that of ROs, confirming that primary matching by RTs is clinically acceptable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi\",\"volume\":\"81 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.25-1585\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.25-1585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
[Evaluation of the Position Matching Accuracy for Radiological Technologists and Radiation Oncologists in Image-guided Radiation Therapy].
Purpose: The promotion of task-shifting and task-sharing to facilitate work style reform for physicians has enabled radiological technologists (RTs) to perform primary matching in image-guided radiotherapy. The purpose in this study is to evaluate the position matching accuracy of RTs and radiation oncologist (ROs).
Methods: Position matching was performed by four RTs and two ROs (RO-A and B). To evaluate the accuracy of the observer's position matching, five cases each were identified for the head, neck, chest, and pelvic regions in two-dimension planar images (2D/2D), and for the prostate in three-dimensional (3D) images (CBCT). Manual position matching was performed using the offline matching of the position matching analysis software at a position moved by 3-7 mm in the XYZ directions from the treatment position at the time of treatment. Inter-observer position matching accuracy was evaluated by calculating the difference between the treatment position and the matching position, and by calculating a 3D vector from the above difference.
Results: The differences between the irradiation position and the reference position were within ±1.0 mm for 2D/2D and within ±1.5 mm for CBCT for the four RTs, while the maximum differences for RO-A were 3.0 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively. For 3D vectors, in 2D/2D, the values for four RTs and RO-B were 0.1-0.6 mm, compared to RO-A was 1.2-1.7 mm, and in CBCT, the values for four RTs were 0.3-0.7 mm, compared to the two ROs' were 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm.
Conclusion: The position matching accuracy of our RTs was not inferior to that of ROs, confirming that primary matching by RTs is clinically acceptable.