Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Med Phys. 2018 Nov 20;46(1):5–14. doi: 10.1002/mp.13246

Table II.

Comparison of time spent on PSQA procedures per patient plan for various treatment sites with manual and automated workflow components. The number of fields for each site determined from PSQA log of 890 patient fields previously receiving QA. The preparation and analysis time reduction per plan achieved with automation is shown across all disease sites. Measurement time using manual methods was not recorded for this study, so only current measurement times using the DigiPhant assembly are reported here. Consequently, overall PSQA time savings are reported assuming no improvement was made to measurement time.

Time (min)a
Time (min)a
Treatment Site Number of
Fields per Plana
Manual Plan
Preparation and
Analysis
Automated Plan
Preparation and
Analysis
Prep / Analysis
Time Savings
per Plan (%)a
Measurements Overall Time
Savings (%)a
Prostate 1.1 (0.1) 32 (5) 11 (3) 65 (6) 7 (3) 52 (6)
Lung 2.6 (0.6) 92 (18) 25 (2) 72 (3) 42 (8) 49 (2)
Esophagus 2.4 (0.9) 89 (25) 26 (8) 71 (1) 40 (5) 49 (2)
Craniospinal 3.8 (0.9) 160 (34) 38 (13) 77 (4) 53 (9) 58 (2)
Breast 2.7 (0.8) 106 (12) 26 (5) 76 (3) 36 (10) 57 (5)
Neck 3.0 (1) 148 (43) 33 (8) 77 (3) 53 (7) 56 (5)
Brain 2.4 (0.7) 90 (19) 23 (3) 75 (3) 24 (10) 57 (5)
Spine 2.2 (0.9) 111 (33) 27 (6) 76 (2) 38 (8) 56 (2)
a

Values presented as the average per plan with standard deviation in parentheses.