Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorMunbodh, Reshma
dc.contributor.authorKuster Filipe Bowles, Juliana
dc.contributor.authorZaveri, Hitten
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-06T00:41:39Z
dc.date.available2022-02-06T00:41:39Z
dc.date.issued2021-03
dc.identifier271640924
dc.identifier7704910b-9fd8-450c-b310-2c03134d275a
dc.identifier85100483404
dc.identifier000615528000001
dc.identifier.citationMunbodh , R , Kuster Filipe Bowles , J & Zaveri , H 2021 , ' Graph-based risk assessment and error detection in radiation therapy ' , Medical Physics , vol. 48 , no. 3 , pp. 965-977 . https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14666en
dc.identifier.issn0094-2405
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-5918-9114/work/88731524
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/24814
dc.description.abstractPurpose : The objective of this study was to formalize and automate quality assurance (QA) in radiation oncology. QA in radiation oncology entails a multistep verification of complex, personalized radiation plans to treat cancer involving an interdisciplinary team and high technology, multivendor software and hardware. We addressed the pretreatment physics chart review (TPCR) using methods from graph theory and constraint programming to study the effect of dependencies between variables and automatically identify logical inconsistencies and how they propagate. Materials and Methods : We used a modular approach to decompose the TPCR process into tractable units comprising subprocesses, modules and variables. Modules represent the main software entities comprised in the radiation treatment planning workflow and subprocesses group the checks to be performed by functionality. Module‐associated variables serve as inputs to the subprocesses. Relationships between variables were modeled by means of a directed graph. The detection of errors, in the form of inconsistencies, was formalized as a constraint satisfaction problem whereby checks were encoded as logical formulae. The sequence in which subprocesses are visited was described in a activity diagram. Results : The comprehensive model for the TPCR process comprised 5 modules, 19 subprocesses and 346 variables, 225 of which were distinct. Modules included ”Treatment Planning System” and ”Record and Verify System”. Subprocesses included ”Dose Prescription”, ”Documents”, ”CT Integrity”, ”Anatomical Contours”, ”Beam Configuration”, ”Dose Calculation”, ”3D Dose Distribution Quality” and ”Treatment Approval”. Variable inconsistencies, their source and propagation are determined by checking for constraint violation and through graph traversal. Impact scores, obtained through graph traversal, combined with severity scores associated with an inconsistency, allow risk assessment. Conclusions : Directed graphs combined with constraint programming hold promise for formalizing complex QA processes in radiation oncology, performing risk assessment and automating the TPCR process. Though complex, the process is tractable.
dc.format.extent13
dc.format.extent17762619
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofMedical Physicsen
dc.subjectGraphsen
dc.subjectAutomated checksen
dc.subjectPhysics chart reviewen
dc.subjectRisk assessmenten
dc.subjectModelen
dc.subjectQA75 Electronic computers. Computer scienceen
dc.subjectRC0254 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology (including Cancer)en
dc.subjectRM Therapeutics. Pharmacologyen
dc.subject3rd-DASen
dc.subjectSDG 3 - Good Health and Well-beingen
dc.subject.lccQA75en
dc.subject.lccRC0254en
dc.subject.lccRMen
dc.titleGraph-based risk assessment and error detection in radiation therapyen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Computer Scienceen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14666
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2022-02-06


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record