PubMed HealthSearch

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Robust optimisation for photon radiotherapy: A scoping review of models, paradigms, and reporting.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Robust optimisation offers an alternative to conventional margin-based photon radiotherapy planning by explicitly modelling uncertainty, but practice is variable and not standardised. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to map robust optimisation for photon external beam radiotherapy. Electronic searches of Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar (2000-2025, English language) identified planning studies that incorporated modelled uncertainties into the optimisation process and reported at least one robustness-related outcome. Data were charted on clinical context, uncertainty models, optimisation paradigms, robustness metrics and evidence for clinical implementation. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were included. Most investigated prostate, breast or lung cancer and used intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy in commercial or research treatment planning systems. Scenario-based worst-case (minimax) optimisation was the dominant paradigm in clinically oriented work, while chance-constrained, conditional value at-risk, distributionally robust and adaptive formulations were confined to small methodological series. Uncertainty modelling focused mainly on rigid set-up error; fewer studies incorporated respiratory motion, inter-fraction anatomical change, dose-calculation uncertainty or biological variation. Robustness was evaluated with diverse scenario-based dose-volume metrics, probabilistic coverage measures, composite robustness indices and, less often, biological endpoints. Direct clinical implementation reports were scarce. CONCLUSION: Robust photon planning is technically feasible and generally maintains or improves target coverage and organ sparing compared with margin-based planning. However, heterogeneity in uncertainty models, optimisation configuration and robustness reporting limits comparison and synthesis. Pragmatic minimum standards are proposed to support future consensus and wider clinical adoption.

Humans

Failure modes and effects analysis for clinical implementation of online adaptive radiotherapy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of radiotherapy is limited by anatomical variations occurring over time scales ranging from sub-seconds to days. Online Adaptive Radiotherapy (OART) addresses this by enabling daily plan adaptation based on real-time imaging. While OART offers improved dose conformity, its dynamic, time-constrained workflow introduces novel failure modes that challenge traditional quality assurance protocols. PURPOSE: This study aims to synthesize the existing literature on Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for OART to systematically catalog risks and identify mitigation strategies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies applying FMEA to OART workflows. Eleven studies were included, covering MR-guided (ViewRay MRIdian, Elekta Unity), CBCT-guided (Varian Ethos), and MR-enhanced C-arm linac systems. To address heterogeneity in risk scoring methodologies (e.g., TG-100 10-point scales vs. 5-point rankings), extracted failure modes were harmonized into a standardized three-tier risk classification system (Class I: Low, Class II: Intermediate, Class III: High). RESULTS: A total of 300 unique failure modes were identified, with 49.6 percent classified as high-risk (Class III). Analysis revealed that the majority of high-risk failures were concentrated in the online treatment delivery phase, specifically within human-computer interactions and anatomical contouring steps. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the development of tailored, robust QA frameworks that prioritize human factors and process consistency to guide safe implementation in diverse clinical settings.

Humans