Radiation Therapy Plan Evaluation System
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The evaluation of radiation treatment plans is a time-consuming and subjective process that requires expertise, involving manual navigation through numerous data sources, which can lead to underestimation or overestimation of treatment goals, and lacks objective assessment to ensure that treatment objectives are met.
Innovation Solution
A system and method for evaluating radiation treatment plans that captures evaluation parameters, extracts relevant data, correlates it with clinical or delivery goals, and generates a summary report, highlighting deviations and providing an objective evaluation to aid clinicians in determining plan effectiveness and identifying areas for improvement.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If manual plan evaluation is performed by navigating through numerous data sources, then comprehensive assessment of treatment goals can be achieved, but the process becomes time-consuming and subjective
Solution Approach 1:
The patent introduces an automated evaluation system that acts as an intermediary between the treatment plan data and the clinician. This system automatically navigates through numerous data sources, extracts relevant information, and presents synthesized evaluation results, thereby eliminating the time-consuming manual navigation while maintaining comprehensive assessment capability
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces the manual mechanical process of navigating data sources with an automated computational system. The system uses algorithms to automatically extract, correlate, and evaluate data from multiple sources, substituting the clinician's manual effort with automated processing while preserving evaluation comprehensiveness
2Reliability
If manual plan evaluation is performed by clinicians, then expert judgment can be applied, but subjectivity leads to underestimation or overestimation of treatment goals
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements automated feedback mechanisms where the evaluation system objectively compares treatment plan data against predefined criteria and clinical guidelines. This feedback loop eliminates subjectivity by using consistent, reproducible evaluation algorithms that provide reliable and objective assessment results across different cases
Solution Approach 2:
The patent transforms subjective clinical judgments into objective quantitative parameters through automated analysis. By converting qualitative assessments into measurable data points and applying standardized evaluation criteria, the system maintains reliability while improving objectivity and precision
3Loss of information
If comprehensive data from multiple analysis sources is collected manually, then complete plan assessment is achieved, but the complexity of organizing and correlating data increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent creates a multi-functional automated evaluation system that can handle multiple data sources, extraction methods, and analysis techniques through a single integrated platform. This universal system automatically correlates data from geometric analysis, dose distribution, DVH, parametric analysis, and deliverability analysis without requiring separate manual processes for each data type
Solution Approach 2:
The patent segments the complex evaluation process into distinct automated modules that handle specific data sources and analysis types separately. Each module extracts and processes specific data elements independently, then the system automatically integrates these segmented results into a comprehensive evaluation, reducing organizational complexity while maintaining data completeness
Data Source
Figure 1~2
Figure 3
Figure 4
AI summary
A method for reviewing a treatment plan (24) for delivering radiation therapy to a patient. The treatment plan(24)includes geometric analysis data, dose distribution analysis data, dose volume histogram data, parametric analysis data or deliverability analysis data of a patient. First, for the treatment plan (24), a plurality of clinical and delivery goals are identified (20, 22).Next, goal data points are extracted (26)from the treatment plan (24). Then, data points are correlated (28) to identify deficiencies in the treatment plan (24). A report is generated (30) to display on a display (10) the correlated data points using visual markings (84) to highlight identified deficiencies. Text and audio notations can be attached to the report to explain the correlations and warn a user of plan deficiencies.