Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:31:04.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimising the use of virtual and conventional simulation: a clinical and economic analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

M. McJury ,
B. Foran ,
J. Conway ,
S. Dixon ,
K. Wilcock ,
G. Brown  and
M.H. Robinson
M. McJury*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy Physics, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
B. Foran
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
J. Conway
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy Physics, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
S. Dixon
Affiliation:
School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UK
K. Wilcock
Affiliation:
YCR Department of Clinical Oncology, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
G. Brown
Affiliation:
YCR Department of Clinical Oncology, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
M.H. Robinson
Affiliation:
YCR Department of Clinical Oncology, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
*
Correspondence to: Mark McJury, Department of Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast City Hospital Trust, Lisburn Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 7AB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background and purpose: Currently, optimal use of virtual simulation for all treatment sites is not entirely clear. This study presents data to identify specific patient groups for whom conventional simulation may be completely eliminated and replaced by virtual simulation.

Sampling and method: Two hundred and sixty patients were recruited from four treatment sites (head and neck, breast, pelvis, and thorax). Patients were randomly assigned to be treated using the usual treatment process involving conventional simulation, or a treatment process differing only in the replacement of conventional plan verification with virtual verification. Data were collected on set-up accuracy at verification, and the number of unsatisfactory verifications requiring a return to the conventional simulator. A micro-economic costing analysis was also undertaken, whereby data for each treatment process episode were also collected: number and grade of staff present, and the time for each treatment episode.

Results: The study shows no statistically significant difference in the number of returns to the conventional simulator for each site and study arm. Image registration data show similar quality of verification for each study arm. The micro-costing data show no statistical difference between the virtual and conventional simulation processes.

Conclusions: At our institution, virtual simulation including virtual verification for the sites investigated presents no disadvantage compared to conventional simulation.

Keywords

CTimagingradiotherapyvirtual simulation
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 83 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aird, E, Conway, J. CT simulation for radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 2002;75:937–949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, J, Robinson, MH. CT virtual simulation. Br J Radiol, 1997;70:S106–S118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, CA, Purdy, JA, Harms, W et al. , et al. Design of a fully integrated three-dimensional computed tomography simulator and preliminary clinical evaluation, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;30(4):887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchali, A, Dinges, S, Koswig, S, Rosenthal, P, Salk, S, Harder, C, Schlenger, L, Budach, V. Virtual simulation. First clinical results in patients with prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol, 1998;174(2):88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bel, A, Bartelink, H, Vijlbrief, RE, Lebesque, JV. Transfer errors of planning CT to simulator: A possible source of setup inaccuracies? Radiother Oncol 1994;31:176–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butker, EK, Helton, DJ, Keller, JW, Hughes, LL, Crenshaw, T, Davis, LW. A totally integrated simulation technique for three-field breast treatment using a CT-simulator. Med Phys 1996;23(10):1809–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valicenti, RK, Waterman, FM, Corn, BW, Curran, WJ Jr. A prospective randomized study addressing the need for conventional simulation following virtual simulation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39(5):1131–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McJury, MJ, Fisher, PM, Pledge, S, Brown, G, Anthony, C, Hatton, MQ, Conway, J, Robinson, MH. The impact of virtual simulation in palliative radiotherapy for non-small lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2001;59:311–318.Google Scholar
Bollet, MA, McNair, HA, Hansen, VN, Norman, A, O'Doherty, U, Taylor, H, Rose, M, Mukherjee, R, Huddart, R. Can digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) replace simulation films in prostate cancer conformal radiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):1122–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Sornsen de Koste, JR, de Boer, HC, Schuchhard-Schipper, RHS, Heijmen, BJ. Procedures for high precision setup verification and correction of lung cancer patients using CT- simulation and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55(3):804–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuller, P, Bruns, F, Hesselmann, S, Horn, K, Panke, JE, Schuck, A, Schafer, U, Micke, O, Willich, N. Simulator verification of the accuracy of patient repositioning after virtual simulation. Is physical simulation still needed? Strahlenther Onkol 2002;178(12):715–721.Google Scholar
Lagerwaard, FJ, Van Sornsen de Koste, JR, Nijssen-Visser, MR, Schuchhard-Schipper, RH, Oei, SS, Munne, A, Senan, S. Multiple ‘slow’ CT scans for incorporating lung tumor mobility in radiotherapy planning. Int J Radiat Biol Phys 2001;51(4):932–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruse, JJ, Herman, MG, Hagness, CR, Davis, BJ, Garces, YI, Haddock, MG, Olivier, KR, Stafford, SL, Pisansky, TM. Electronic and film portal images: a comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54(2):584–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchali, A, Geismar, D, Hinkelbein, M, Schlenger, L, Zinner, K, Budach, V. Virtual simulation in patients with breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2001;59(3):267–272.Google Scholar
Mah, K, Danjoux, CE, Manship, S, Makhani, N, Cardoso, M, Sixel, KE. Computed tomographic simulation of craniospinal fields in pediatric patients: improved treatment accuracy and patient comfort. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;41(5):997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar