Improving the Quality of Care in Radiation Oncology using Artificial Intelligence.

Radiation therapy is a complex process involving multiple professionals and steps from simulation to treatment planning to delivery, and these procedures are prone to error. Additionally, the imaging and treatment delivery equipment in radiotherapy is highly complex and interconnected and represents another risk point in the quality of care. Numerous quality assurance tasks are carried out to ensure quality and to detect and prevent potential errors in the process of care. Recent developments in artificial intelligence provide potential tools to the radiation oncology community to improve the efficiency and performance of quality assurance efforts. Targets for artificial intelligence enhancement include the quality assurance of treatment plans, target and tissue structure delineation used in the plans, delivery of the plans and the radiotherapy delivery equipment itself. Here we review recent developments of artificial intelligence applications that aim to improve quality assurance processes in radiation therapy and discuss some of the challenges and limitations that require further development work to realise the potential of artificial intelligence for quality assurance.

Effects of Preparatory Coaching and Home Practice for Deep Inspiration Breath Hold on Cardiac Dose for Left Breast Radiation Therapy.

AIMS: Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces cardiac radiation exposure by creating cardiac-chest wall separation in breast cancer radiotherapy. DIBH requires sustaining chest wall expansion for up to 40 s and involves complex co-ordination of thoraco-abdominal muscles, which may not be intuitive to patients. We investigated the effect of in-advance preparatory DIBH coaching and home practice on cardiac doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Successive patients from 1 February 2015 to 31 December 2016 with left-sided breast cancer who underwent tangential field radiotherapy utilising the DIBH technique were included. The study cohort consisted of patients treated by a physician who routinely provided DIBH coaching and home practice instructions at least 5 days before simulation. The control group included non-coached patients under another physician's care. Minimum, maximum and mean cardiac doses and V5, V10 and V30 from DIBH and free breathing simulation computed tomography scans were obtained from the planning system. DIBH and free breathing cardiac doses and volume exposures were compared between the coached and non-coached groups using the two-sample t-test, Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Twenty-seven coached and 42 non-coached patients were identified. The DIBH maximum cardiac dose was lower in coached patients at 13.1 Gy compared with 19.4 Gy without coaching (P = 0.004). The percentage cardiac volume exposure in DIBH was lower in coached patients; the DIBH V10 was 0.5% without coaching and 0.1% with coaching (P = 0.005). There was also a trend towards lower DIBH V5 in the coached group compared with the non-coached group (1.2% versus 1.9%, P = 0.071). No significant differences in patient cardiopulmonary comorbidity factors that might influence cardiac doses were found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that cardiac dose sparing can potentially be further improved with a 5 day regimen of preparatory DIBH coaching and in-advance home practice before simulation. These hypothesis-generating findings should be confirmed in a larger study.