基于ESAPI编译结构快速处理软件的实现与评估  

Implementation and assessment of software based on ESAPI compilation structure

作　　者：汪之群 杨波[1] 张杰[1] 于浪[1] 王贝 李文博[1] 朱皓 王小深 蓝茂英 王兴柳 周宗凯 朱伟华 张震 胡克[1] 张福泉[1] 邱杰[1] Wang Zhiqun;Yang Bo;Zhang Jie;Yu Lang;Wang Bei;Li Wenbo;Zhu Gao;Wang Xiaoshen;Lan Maoying;Wang Xingliu;Zhou Zongkai;Zhu Weihua;Zhang Zhen;Hu Ke;Zhang Fuquan;Qiu Jie(Department of Radiation Oncology,Peking Union Medical College Hospital,Beijing 100730,China;Varian Medical System,Beijing 100176,China)

机构地区：[1]中国医学科学院北京协和医学院北京协和医院放疗科,100730 [2]瓦里安医疗设备(中国)有限公司,北京100176

出　　处：《中华放射肿瘤学杂志》2021年第11期1173-1177,共5页Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology

基　　金：“十三五”国家重点研发计划项目(2016YFC0105206、2016YFC0105207)。

摘　　要：目的利用ESAPI功能开发靶区与危及器官结构快速处理软件,帮助放疗临床计划制作者简化各种常见的结构后处理操作。方法基于ESAPI功能开发SmartStructure脚本软件,并在临床工作中进行验证评估。选取直肠癌新辅助放疗、乳腺癌保乳术后放疗、宫颈癌术后放疗、鼻咽癌根治性放疗、肺部立体定向放疗(SBRT)病例各10例,不同病种有不同的结构处理需求。每个病例分别采用常规手动处理方式(手动组)、使用SmartStructure脚本但不使用模板进行结构处理(SmaStru-N组)、使用SmartStructure脚本且使用针对该病种的临床辅助结构模板进行结构处理(SmaStru-P组)。比较3种方式的处理时间,并请临床工作者对脚本进行多方面评分,并对比脚本软件和手动两种方式的使用感受评分。结果上述3种方法均能在临床上正常使用。在出错率方面,手动组为7.0%,SmaStru-N组为3.0%,SmaStru-P组为0%。5种病例SmaStru-N组方式较手动组平均提升60.9%的靶区及危及器官处理时间,SmaStru-P组较手动组提升93.3%处理时间。SmartStructure脚本方式使用感受评分均高于手动方式。临床工作者对脚本“适用性”与“简便性”方面评分较低,“准确性”与“效率”方面评分较高。结论相较于常规手动处理结构方式,使用SmartStructure脚本软件能够快速准确地进行靶区与危及器官的结构处理,且随着病例需要处理结构数量的增加其优势更加明显。SmartStructure符合临床需求、降低出错率、提升计划处理速度、提升临床工作者的工作效率,为今后自适应放疗的发展提供基础。Objective To help clinicians simplify the post-processing operations of structures by developing rapid processing software for target area and organs at risk structures based on ESAPI.Methods SmartStructure script software was developed based on ESAPI,verified and evaluated in clinical work.10 cases of rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant radiotherapy,10 breast cancer treated with postoperative radiotherapy,10 cervical cancer receiving postoperative radiotherapy,10 nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving radical radiotherapy and 10 lung stereotactic body radiotherapy(SBRT)were selected,and different types of tumors had different post-processing operations of structures.In each case,three methods were used for post-processing of structures.In the control group(manual group),normal manual processing was employed.In the experimental group 1(SmaStru-N group),scripts without templates were utilized.In the experimental group 2(SmaStru-P group).scripts combined with templates were adopted.The processing time of the three methods was compared.Clinicians scored the scripting software from multiple aspects and compared the feeling scores of scripting software and manual operation.Results All three methods can be normally applied in clinical settings.The error rate in the manual group was 7.0%,3.0%in the SmaStru-N group 0%in the SmaStru-P group,respectively.Compared with the manual method,SmaStru-N shortened the processing time of target area and organs at risk by 60.9%and 93.3%for SmaStru-P.In addition,SmartStructure was superior to manual method in terms of using feeling scores.Clinicians gave lower score for the"applicability"and"simplicity",and higher score on the"accuracy"and"efficiency".Conclusions Compared with conventional manual structure processing method,SmartStructure software can rapidly and accurately process all structures of the target area and organs at risk,and its advantages become more obvious with the increasing number of structures that need to be processed.SmartStructure software can meet clinical requireme

关 键 词：软件工程 结构处理时间 感受评分 性能评分 效率评估 

分 类 号：R730.55[医药卫生—肿瘤] TP311.52[医药卫生—临床医学]