Perceptions on and roadblocks to implementation of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology: A survey from TG‐263U1

Abstract

AbstractPurposeAAPM Task Group No. 263U1 (Update to Report No. 263 – Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology) disseminated a survey to receive feedback on utilization, gaps, and means to facilitate further adoption.MethodsThe survey was created by TG‐263U1 members to solicit feedback from physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians working in radiation oncology. Questions on the adoption of the TG‐263 standard were coupled with demographic information, such as clinical role, place of primary employment (e.g., private hospital, academic center), and size of institution. The survey was emailed to all AAPM, AAMD, and ASTRO members.ResultsThe survey received 463 responses with 310 completed survey responses used for analysis, of whom most had the clinical role of medical physicist (73%) and the majority were from the United States (83%). There were 83% of respondents who indicated that they believe that having a nomenclature standard is important or very important and 61% had adopted all or portions of TG‐263 in their clinics. For those yet to adopt TG‐263, the staffing and implementation efforts were the main cause for delaying adoption. Fewer respondents had trouble adopting TG‐263 for organs at risk (29%) versus target (44%) nomenclature. Common themes in written feedback were lack of physician support and available resources, especially in vendor systems, to facilitate adoption.ConclusionsWhile there is strong support and belief in the benefit of standardized nomenclature, the widespread adoption of TG‐263 has been hindered by the effort needed by staff for implementation.  Feedback from the survey is being utilized to drive the focus of the update efforts and create tools to facilitate easier adoption of TG‐263.