Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov;27(4):1085–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.04.012

Table 3.

Workflows used by each Focus group (FG).

Study No. Pathway Sites? Patient set-up Image acquisitions Image registrations Contouring tumour Contouring organs at risk Decision to replan/recontour Plan creation Plan checking Decision to treat with adapted plan On-call provision
FG1 Radiographer-led ATS All standard sites R R R R R R R R R R, P, C
Radiographer-led ATS with clinician present #1 Complex cases – discussed in meeting prior to treatment R R R R R R + C R R C R, P
FG3 Clinician-light ATP Prostate R R R N/A N/A P P P R C
FG4 Clinician-light ATP Prostate R R R N/A N/A P P P R C
FG5 MDT-led ATS All standard sites R R R C C C P P R + C N/A
II6 MDT-led ATS All standard sites R R R C C C P P R + C N/A

R: Radiographer. P: Physicist. C: Clinician.

Note: FG 2 excluded as not yet treating or finalised workflow and pathway (FG: Focus group. II: Individual interview. ATP: Adapt to position. ATS: Adapt to shape).