↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

AAPM and GEC-ESTRO guidelines for image-guided robotic brachytherapy: Report of Task Group 192

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
AAPM and GEC-ESTRO guidelines for image-guided robotic brachytherapy: Report of Task Group 192
Published in
Medical Physics, September 2014
DOI 10.1118/1.4895013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarun K. Podder, Luc Beaulieu, Barrett Caldwell, Robert A. Cormack, Jostin B. Crass, Adam P. Dicker, Aaron Fenster, Gabor Fichtinger, Michael A. Meltsner, Marinus A. Moerland, Ravinder Nath, Mark J. Rivard, Tim Salcudean, Danny Y. Song, Bruce R. Thomadsen, Yan Yu

Abstract

In the last decade, there have been significant developments into integration of robots and automation tools with brachytherapy delivery systems. These systems aim to improve the current paradigm by executing higher precision and accuracy in seed placement, improving calculation of optimal seed locations, minimizing surgical trauma, and reducing radiation exposure to medical staff. Most of the applications of this technology have been in the implantation of seeds in patients with early-stage prostate cancer. Nevertheless, the techniques apply to any clinical site where interstitial brachytherapy is appropriate. In consideration of the rapid developments in this area, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) commissioned Task Group 192 to review the state-of-the-art in the field of robotic interstitial brachytherapy. This is a joint Task Group with the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO). All developed and reported robotic brachytherapy systems were reviewed. Commissioning and quality assurance procedures for the safe and consistent use of these systems are also provided. Manual seed placement techniques with a rigid template have an estimated in vivo accuracy of 3-6 mm. In addition to the placement accuracy, factors such as tissue deformation, needle deviation, and edema may result in a delivered dose distribution that differs from the preimplant or intraoperative plan. However, real-time needle tracking and seed identification for dynamic updating of dosimetry may improve the quality of seed implantation. The AAPM and GEC-ESTRO recommend that robotic systems should demonstrate a spatial accuracy of seed placement ≤1.0 mm in a phantom. This recommendation is based on the current performance of existing robotic brachytherapy systems and propagation of uncertainties. During clinical commissioning, tests should be conducted to ensure that this level of accuracy is achieved. These tests should mimic the real operating procedure as closely as possible. Additional recommendations on robotic brachytherapy systems include display of the operational state; capability of manual override; documented policies for independent check and data verification; intuitive interface displaying the implantation plan and visualization of needle positions and seed locations relative to the target anatomy; needle insertion in a sequential order; robot-clinician and robot-patient interactions robustness, reliability, and safety while delivering the correct dose at the correct site for the correct patient; avoidance of excessive force on radioactive sources; delivery confirmation of the required number or position of seeds; incorporation of a collision avoidance system; system cleaning, decontamination, and sterilization procedures. These recommendations are applicable to end users and manufacturers of robotic brachytherapy systems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Student > Master 13 18%
Other 11 15%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 38%
Physics and Astronomy 21 28%
Unspecified 11 15%
Engineering 9 12%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 3 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2014.
All research outputs
#4,080,773
of 4,877,674 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#1,681
of 1,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,692
of 133,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#100
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,877,674 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,948 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 133,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.