The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy (대한방사선치료학회지)

Korean Society for Radiation Therapy (대한방사선치료학회)
권호 표지

TomoTherapy: Analysis of treatment time and influencing factor

TomoTherapy: 치료 소요시간 및 영향 요인 분석

  • Son, Jong Gi (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Kang, Hyun Sung (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Hwang, Chul Hwan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Se, Seung Jeong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Min Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital)
  • 손종기 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 강현성 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 황철환 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 서세정 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 최민호 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과)
  • Published : 2017.12.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure the average actual treatment time at the time of Tomotherapy treatment. We want to investigate the time required for the procedure in the treatment process that affects the actual treatment time. Patients and Methods: We measured the time required by the procedure in 31 patients who were treated with tomography therapy. Beam-on time, Image registration time, Set-up with scan time and Actual treatment time were measured and stepwise regression analysis was performed. Result: The average treatment time per a patient was 21.44 - 23.92 minutes. Beam-on time, Image registration time, and Set-up with Scan time were the important factors affecting the actual treatment time. The biggest influence was Beam-on time and Registration time was less affected by analysing. Conclusion: The average treatment time per a patient in tomotherapy treatment was $22.68{\pm}3.37$ minutes. The Approximately 21 patients are expected to be treated within 8 hours of regular work time. However, if the treatment is interrupted or the time of the procedure is changed during the treatment process, it affects the schedule of the daily treatment patients and the workload is expected to increase.

목 적: 본 연구의 목적은 TomoTherapy 치료시에 평균 실제 치료시간을 측정하고, 치료과정에서 실제 치료시간에 영향을 미치는 절차들의 소요시간을 조사하고자 한다. 환자 및 방법: TomoTherapy치료를 받은 31명의 환자를 대상으로 치료과정에서 절차에 의한 소요시간을 측정하였다. Beam-on time, Image registration time, 그리고 Set-up with scan time, Actual treatment time을 측정하고 단계적 선형 회귀분석을 수행하였다. 결 과: 치료부위 당 평균 실제 치료시간은 21.44 - 23.92분 이었다. Beam-on time, Image registration time, 그리고 Set-up with Scan time들이 실제치료 시간에 영향을 미치는 중요한 요인이었으며, 가장 큰 영향요인은 Beam-on time이었고, 그 다음으로 Set-up with Scan time이었다. 그리고 Image registration time은 영향이 적은 것으로 분석되었다. 결 론: TomoTherapy 치료환자 1명당 실제 치료시간은 평균 $22.68{\pm}3.37$분이었다. 정규시간 8시간 이내에 약 21명의 환자가 치료받을 수 있을 것으로 예상된다. 그러나 치료가 중단되거나 치료과정에서 절차의 진행시간이 달라지면, 일일 치료환자들의 스케줄에 영향을 미치며, 업무 부하량이 늘어날 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Korreman S, Rash C, McNair Hele, et al. The European Society of Therapeutic Radiology an On cology-European Institute of Radiotherapy (ESTRO-EIR) report on 3D CT-based in-room image guidance systems: a practical and technical review and guide. Radiother On col. 2010;94(2):129-44.
  2. Ruchala KJ, Olivera GH, Schloesser EA, Mackie TR. Megavoltage CT on a tomotherapy system. Phys Med Biol. 1999:44(10):2594-621.
  3. Donnay L, Dejean C, Amsellem E, et al. [Radiotherapy for soft tissue sarcomas of extre- mities. Preliminary comparative study of 3D conformal radiotherapy versus helical tomotherapy.] [in French] Cancer Radiother. 2008;12(8):809-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2008.08.275
  4. Pengnariano J, Moros E, Corr y P, Saylors R, Ratanatharathorn V. Pediatric craniospinal axis irradiation with helical tomotherapy: patient outcome and lack of acute pulmonary toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(4):1155- 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.083
  5. Martin J, Balter J, Balter S, et al. The manage- ment of imaging dose during image-guide radio therapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 75. Med Phys. 2007;34(10):4041-63. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2775667
  6. Duma MN, Kampfer S, Wilkens JJ, Schushter T, Molls M, Geinitz H. Comparative analysis of an imageguided versus a non-image-guided setup approach in terms of delivered dose to the parotid glands in head-and-neck cancer IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 77(4):1266-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.047
  7. Barbera, L., Jackson, L. D., Schulze, K., Groome, P. A., Foroudi, F., Delaney, G. P., et al. Perfor- mance of different radiotherapy workload models. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55, 1143-1149(2003).DOI:10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04400-0
  8. Kazmierczak, D., Bogusz-Czerniewicz, M. Identi fication of patient's requirements in quality manage ment system in health care institutions. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 17, 50-53 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2011.10.006
  9. Welsh, J. S., Patel, R. R., Ritter, M. A., Harari, P. Mackie, T. R., Mehta, M. P. Helical tomo therapy: an innovative technology and appro- ach to radiation therapy. Technol Canc Res Treat 1, 55-63 (2002).
  10. Piotrowski, T., Skorska, M., Jodda, A., Ryczko wski, A., Kazmierska, J., Adamska, K., et al.Tomo therapy-different way of dose delivery in radio therapy. Wspolczesna Onkol (Contem-porary Oncol) 16, 16-25 (2012). DOI: 10.5114/wo.2012.27332
  11. Dejean, C., Kantor, G., Henriques de Figueire do, B., Lisbona, A., Mahe M., Mervoyer, A., et al. Helical tomotherapy: description and clinical applications. Bull Cancer 97, 783-789 (2010). DOI: 10.1684/bdc.2010.1135
  12. Bijdekerke, P., Verellen, D., Tournel, K., Vinh-Hung, V., Somers, F., Bieseman, P., et al. TomoTherapy: Implications on daily workload and scheduling patients. Radiother Oncol 86, 224-230 (2008). DOI:10.1016/j.radonc. 2007. 10. 036
  13. Bauman, G., Yartsev, S., Rodrigues, G., Lewis, C., Venkatesan, V. M., Yu, E., et al. A pro- spective evaluation of helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68, 632-641 (2007). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.052.
  14. Burnet, N. G., Adams, E. J., Fairfoul, J., Tudor, G. S. J., Hoole, A. C. F., Routsis, D. S., et al. Practical aspects of implementation of helical tomotherapy for intensity modulated and image guided radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 22, 294-312 (2010). DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2010.02.003.
  15. Martin J, Balter J, Balter S, et al. The mana- gement of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 75. Med Phys. 2007;34(10): 4041-63. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2775667
  16. Duma MN, Kampfer S, Schuster T, et al. Do we need daily image-guided radiotherapyby megavoltage computed tomography in head and neck helical tomotherapy? The actual deli vered dose to the spinal cord. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(1):283-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.073
  17. Duma MN, Kampfer S, Wilkens JJ, Schushter T, Molls M, Geinitz H. Comparative analysis of an image-guided versus a non-image- guided setup approach in terms of delivered dose to the parotid glands in head-and-neck cancer IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(4):1266-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.047
  18. de Boer HC and Heijmen BJ. A protocol for reduction of systematic patient setup errors with minimal portal imaging workload. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50(5):1350-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01624-8
  19. de Boer HC, van Os MJ, Jansen P, Heijmen BJ. Application of the No Action Level (NAL) protocol to correct for prostate motion based on electronic portal imaging of implanted markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 61(4):969-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.09.035
  20. Piotrowski, Ph.D., Czajka, M.Sc. Tomotherapy: Implications on Daily Workload and Sched uling Patients based on Three Years' Institu tional Experience. Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment. 13, 1-2 (2014) DOI: 10.77 85/tcrt.2012.500374.