ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S2378

Interdisciplinary – Other

ESTRO 2025

Results The automated process demonstrated notable success, with a measurable reduction in errors across multiple workflow stages. Staff workload related to the transfer process decreased significantly, enabling more focus on patient-specific planning tasks. The removal of this monotonous, error-prone task also positively impacted staff satisfaction and overall performance. Conclusion Implementing an automated transfer routine using Monaco Scripting effectively streamlined the transfer of patient plans from the TPS to the R&V system and beyond. This innovation reduced errors, enhanced workflow efficiency, and improved staff performance and satisfaction. The results highlight the potential for broader adoption of automation in clinical workflows to address increasing complexity and maintain high-quality care.

Keywords: Automation, Scripting

2785

Digital Poster A prospective cohort study to evaluate peer-review strategies in radiation oncology Stephanie Tanadini-Lang, Lotte Wilke, Sara Abdollahi, Indira Madani, Filipa Branco Venancio Heinitz, Klara Kefer, Izabela Pytko, Nicolaus Andratschke, Matthias Guckenberger Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Purpose/Objective Despite its ubiquitous use in radiation oncology, there is very limited prospective evidence about the quantitative value of peer-review quality processes. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate and compare two peer-review strategies: a single-step peer-review after treatment planning versus a two-step peer-review process with sequential review rounds after contouring and after treatment planning. Material/Methods The study was a single-center prospective cohort study comparing two consecutive cohorts: the first one undergoing a single-step peer-review of contours and the radiotherapy treatment plan together, and the second one undergoing a two-step peer-review process after contouring and after treatment planning (figure 1). The primary endpoint was the proportion of the contours and changes of treatment concepts recommended by the peer-review group. Secondary endpoints were requested modifications of the dose distribution, time between imaging and start of the treatment, required resources for peer review, and preference for one or the other peer review strategy of clinicians and medical physicists.