Development of automated image analysis tools for verification of radiotherapy field accuracy with an electronic portal imaging device

The successful management of cancer with radiation relies on the accurate deposition of a prescribed dose to a prescribed anatomical volume within the patient. Treatment set-up errors are inevitable because the alignment of field shaping devices with the patient must be repeated daily up to eighty times during the course of a fractionated radiotherapy treatment. With the invention of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs), patient's portal images can be visualized daily in real-time after only a small fraction of the radiation dose has been delivered to each treatment field. However, the accuracy of human visual evaluation of low-contrast portal images has been found to be inadequate. The goal of this research is to develop automated image analysis tools to detect both treatment field shape errors and patient anatomy placement errors with an EPID. A moments method has been developed to align treatment field images to compensate for lack of repositioning precision of the image detector. A figure of merit has also been established to verify the shape and rotation of the treatment fields. Following proper alignment of treatment field boundaries, a cross-correlation method has been developed to detect shifts of the patient's anatomy relative to the treatment field boundary. Phantom studies showed that the moments method aligned the radiation fields to within 0.5mm of translation and 0.5$\sp\circ$ of rotation and that the cross-correlation method aligned anatomical structures inside the radiation field to within 1 mm of translation and 1$\sp\circ$ of rotation. A new procedure of generating and using digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) at megavoltage energies as reference images was also investigated. The procedure allowed a direct comparison between a designed treatment portal and the actual patient setup positions detected by an EPID. Phantom studies confirmed the feasibility of the methodology. Both the moments method and the cross-correlation technique were implemented within an experimental radiotherapy picture archival and communication system (RT-PACS) and were used clinically to evaluate the setup variability of two groups of cancer patients treated with and without an alpha-cradle immobilization aid. The tools developed in this project have proven to be very effective and have played an important role in detecting patient alignment errors and field-shape errors in treatment fields formed by a multileaf collimator (MLC). ^

Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential?

BACKGROUND: Given the fragmentation of outpatient care, timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging results remains a challenge. We hypothesized that an electronic medical record (EMR) that facilitates the transmission and availability of critical imaging results through either automated notification (alerting) or direct access to the primary report would eliminate this problem. METHODS: We studied critical imaging alert notifications in the outpatient setting of a tertiary care Department of Veterans Affairs facility from November 2007 to June 2008. Tracking software determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, health care practitioner/provider [HCP] opened the message for viewing) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. We reviewed medical records and contacted HCPs to determine timely follow-up actions (eg, ordering a follow-up test or consultation) within 4 weeks of transmission. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering effect by HCPs analyzed predictors for 2 outcomes: lack of acknowledgment and lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Of 123 638 studies (including radiographs, computed tomographic scans, ultrasonograms, magnetic resonance images, and mammograms), 1196 images (0.97%) generated alerts; 217 (18.1%) of these were unacknowledged. Alerts had a higher risk of being unacknowledged when the ordering HCPs were trainees (odds ratio [OR], 5.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.86-10.89) and when dual-alert (>1 HCP alerted) as opposed to single-alert communication was used (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.22-3.36). Timely follow-up was lacking in 92 (7.7% of all alerts) and was similar for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (7.3% vs 9.7%; P = .22). Risk for lack of timely follow-up was higher with dual-alert communication (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.06-3.48) but lower when additional verbal communication was used by the radiologist (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.38). Nearly all abnormal results lacking timely follow-up at 4 weeks were eventually found to have measurable clinical impact in terms of further diagnostic testing or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Critical imaging results may not receive timely follow-up actions even when HCPs receive and read results in an advanced, integrated electronic medical record system. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve patient safety in this area.