Passive tracking of linac clinical flow using radiofrequency identification technology.

Practical radiation oncology · 2014 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 3092

In 4302 fractions from 144 patients over 10 months, passive RFID achieved approximately 70% read reliability with minimal staff training. Median linac vault times differed by machine (TrueBeam 11.0 min vs iX 11.9 min; P<.0001) and by treatment type (RapidArc …

Study snapshot

PublicationPractical radiation oncology · 2014

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the implementation of a passive radiofrequency identification (RFID) clinical system and to evaluate the clinical workflow on 2 linear accelerators using the RFID technology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The clinical area of a typical radiation therapy center was equipped with RFID readers and antennae, which included linear accelerator (linac) treatment vaults. Both were dual energy linacs (6 and 15 MV). One linac was an iX with RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Inc, Palo Alto, CA) and the other was a TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems, Inc, Palo Alto, CA). Patients were given an RFID transponder card on their first day of treatment. Location timestamps were collected when the patients entered and exited the linac vaults. Each fraction was categorized by treatment machine, treatment site (brain, head and neck, prostate, and other), and treatment type (static field intensity modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], RapidArc, and 3-dimensional [3D]). The Mann-Whitney nonparametric test was used to determine statistical significance between median times in the linac vault. RESULTS: A total of 4302 fractions from 144 patients were analyzed over a 10-month period. With minimal staff training, an approximately 70% read reliability was achieved. The median treatment time for all treatment fractions on the TrueBeam linac was 11.0 minutes (n = 1425) while the median time was 11.9 minutes (n = 1576) on the iX linac (P < .0001). Median times for the RapidArc cases was 10.9 minutes (n = 610) and 12.0 minutes (n = 1729) for IMRT cases (P < .0001). Median values for 3D delivery versus modulated delivery (RapidArc and IMRT) were 9.8 minutes (n = 315) and 11.7 minutes (n = 2339), P < .0001. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic remote reading of passive transponder cards is not without its challenges. However, with little or no clinical introduction, we experienced a read reliability that warrants further development. Our initial use of the system indicates that continual collection and analysis of workflow data may allow clinics to improve efficiency and safety.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionunclear

PopulationRadiation therapy patients treated on two linear accelerators in a radiation therapy center

Sample size144

ExposureRF · 10-month period (workflow tracking during radiation therapy visits)

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

RFID read reliability
Linac vault treatment time (median time per fraction)
Workflow comparisons by machine (TrueBeam vs iX)
Workflow comparisons by treatment type (RapidArc vs IMRT vs 3D)

Limitations

RFID read reliability was approximately 70%, indicating challenges with automatic remote reading
No RFID technical parameters (e.g., frequency, power, SAR) reported
Focus is on workflow/efficiency metrics rather than health effects of RF exposure

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "RFID",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "10-month period (workflow tracking during radiation therapy visits)"
  },
  "population": "Radiation therapy patients treated on two linear accelerators in a radiation therapy center",
  "sample_size": 144,
  "outcomes": [
    "RFID read reliability",
    "Linac vault treatment time (median time per fraction)",
    "Workflow comparisons by machine (TrueBeam vs iX)",
    "Workflow comparisons by treatment type (RapidArc vs IMRT vs 3D)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 4302 fractions from 144 patients over 10 months, passive RFID achieved approximately 70% read reliability with minimal staff training. Median linac vault times differed by machine (TrueBeam 11.0 min vs iX 11.9 min; P<.0001) and by treatment type (RapidArc 10.9 min vs IMRT 12.0 min; P<.0001; 3D 9.8 min vs modulated 11.7 min; P<.0001).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "RFID read reliability was approximately 70%, indicating challenges with automatic remote reading",
    "No RFID technical parameters (e.g., frequency, power, SAR) reported",
    "Focus is on workflow/efficiency metrics rather than health effects of RF exposure"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency identification",
    "RFID",
    "passive transponder card",
    "workflow",
    "linear accelerator",
    "radiation therapy",
    "treatment time",
    "clinical flow"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2013.03.005
PubMed: 24621437

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library