↓ 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
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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 140 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 137 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 21%
Student > Master 18 13%
Other 13 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 27%
Physics and Astronomy 28 20%
Engineering 14 10%
Computer Science 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 38 27%

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
#17,219,020
of 21,321,525 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#5,871
of 7,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,424
of 224,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#93
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,525 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,393 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 224,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.