Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 14, 2025
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
Toward automation of initial chart check for photon/electron EBRT: the clinical implementation of new AAPM task group
Huijun Xu1, Baoshe Zhang1, Mariana Guerrero1
1University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Purpose:
The recently published AAPM TG-275 and the public review version of TG-315 list new recommendations for comprehensive and minimum physics initial chart checks, respectively. This article addresses the potential development and benefit of initial chart check automation when these recommendations are implemented for clinical photon/electron EBRT.
Methods:
Eight board-certified physicists with 2-20 years of clinical experience performed initial chart checks using checklists from TG-275 and TG-315. Manual check times were estimated for three types of plans (IMRT/VMAT, 3D, and 2D) and for prostate, whole pelvis, lung, breast, head and neck, and brain cancers. An expert development team of three physicists re-evaluated the automation feasibility of TG-275 checklist based on their experience of developing and implementing the in-house and the commercial automation tools in our institution. Three levels of initial chart check automation were simulated: (1) Auto_UMMS_tool (which consists of in-house program and commercially available software); (2) Auto_TG275 (with full and partial automation as indicated in TG-275); and (3) Auto_UMMS_exp (with full and partial automation as determined by our experts' re-evaluation).
Results:
With no automation of initial chart checks, the ranges of manual check times were 29-56 min (full TG-315 list) and 102-163 min (full TG-275 list), which varied significantly with physicists but varied little at different tumor sites. The 69 of 71 checks which were considered as "not fully automated" in TG-275 were re-evaluated with more automation feasibility. Compared to no automation, the higher levels of automation yielded a great reduction in both manual check times (by 44%-98%) and potentially residual detectable errors (by 15-85%).
Conclusion:
The initial chart check automation greatly improves the practicality and efficiency of implementing the new TG recommendations. Revisiting the TG reports with new technology/practice updates may help develop and utilize more automation clinically.
