RESUMO
PURPOSE: The increasing complexity of radiation treatments can hinder its clinical success. This study aimed to better understand evolving risks by re-evaluating a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in lung SBRT. METHODS: An experienced multidisciplinary team conducted an FMEA and made a reassessment 3 years later. A process map was developed with potential failure modes (FMs) identified. High-risk FMs and their possible causes and corrective actions were determined. The initial FMEA analysis was compared to gain a deeper perspective. RESULTS: We identified 232 FMs. The high-risk processes were plan approval, target contouring, and patient evaluation. The corrective measures were based on stricter standardization of plan approval, pre-planning peer review, and a supporting pretreatment checklist, which substantially reduced the risk priority number in the revised FMEA. In the FMEA reassessment, we observed that the increased complexity and number of patients receiving lung SBRT conditioned a more substantial presence of human factors and communication errors as causal conditions and a potential wrong dose as a final effect. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a lung SBRT FMEA analysis has identified high-risk conditions that have been effectively mitigated in an FMEA reanalysis. Plan approval has shown to be a weak link in the process. The increasing complexity of treatments and patient numbers have shifted causal factors toward human failure and communication errors. The potential of a wrong dose as a final effect augments in this scenario. We propose that digital and artificial intelligence options are needed to mitigate potential errors in high-complexity and high-risk RT scenarios.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: There is a gap in knowledge regarding the ideal management of patients with early-stage cervical cancer and intermediate-risk features. Here, we present a meta-analysis of the published literature on oncological outcomes in these patients and determine trends in postoperative management. METHODS: MEDLINE and PubMed were used for literature searches. The inclusion criteria were: English language articles including ≥ 10 patients, patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, nodes negative, studies reporting oncological outcomes and complications treatment-related and compare a surgery-only cohort with a radiotherapy cohort. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Combined relative risk was calculated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and a forest plot was drawn. RESULTS: We collected 183 manuscripts on early-stage cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy alone or with adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery. A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Regarding oncological outcomes, survival was reported in five studies. The relative risk of recurrence and the relative risk of mortality was similar in both groups independently whether receive or not adjuvant therapy. Most of the studies did not report significant differences regarding morbidity treatment related between the groups, except for a higher rate of lymphedema after radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: We found that the relative risk of recurrence and mortality was similar in both groups not depending on adjuvant therapy. Therefore, whether radiotherapy adjuvant treatment is indicated remains a topic of debate.