Pen tablet vs mouse for Contouring OAR and targets
24
Pen Tablet (Human Computer Interface) for smooth and faster contouring of Targets and Organ at risk in comparison with Mouse .” Presenter & Main Author - Dr. Surendra Singh Solanki 1 MD Co- Authors - M. Loganathan, 2 R. Swathika, 2 1 Radiation Oncologist, 2 Medical Physicists, “BA” Smt. Lilaben Chimanlal Parikh Cancer Centre, Navsari, Gujarat, India Date of presentation- 30Nov 2012-Kolkata 1 AROICON 2012- Kolkata
-
Upload
surendra-solanki -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
1.101 -
download
1
description
This presentation shows that for a Radiation oncologist who is doing 3DCRT and IMRT at their center with mouse, they can reduce their contouring time with help of pen tablets easily and more effectively .This is first study in India about comparison of mouse with pen tablet. The Cost of this pen tablet is Rs 4000 to 6000 only. This can be easily purchased at anywhere. ... When surgeons want to reduce their operative time why cant a radiation oncologist can reduce his contouring time by using pen tablet in place of mouse. This presentation was made at AROICON 2012 at Kolkata on 30th Nov 2012, abstract is published in 3rd supplementary issue of JCRT Nov 2012. In Proferred Oral Paper Category in Hall C awarded first Prize. About my center My center has started in Jan 2011. in last two years we have treated more than 600 patients so far. With more then 120 Patients for IMRT. Since last 300 patients we are treating everyone through 3DCRT and IMRT only . hence by this our centre is one of very few center in India where all radiotherapy practice is done through 3DCRT and IMRT. Radiation oncologist makes all the contouring and medical physicist are planning on contouring. That,s why this concept of pen tablet was given to me for making me efficient in contouring and to relief me from pain in wrist joint, Its my request to all radiation oncologist of India to kindly one time use this device for their contouring hours and see that pen based input device are far better then mouse. DR Surendra Singh Solanki MD Consultant, Radiation Oncologist BA Smt L C Parikh Cancer Centre Navsari, Gujarat.
Transcript of Pen tablet vs mouse for Contouring OAR and targets
1
“To Study the effectiveness of Pen Tablet (Human Computer Interface) for smooth and faster contouring of Targets and Organ at risk
in comparison with Mouse.”Presenter & Main Author - Dr. Surendra Singh
Solanki1 MD
Co- Authors - M. Loganathan,2 R. Swathika,2
1Radiation Oncologist, 2Medical Physicists,
“BA” Smt. Lilaben Chimanlal Parikh Cancer Centre, Navsari, Gujarat, India
Date of presentation- 30Nov 2012-Kolkata
AROICON 2012- Kolkata
2Mouse
Pen tablet
3
Computer Science
Human Computer InterfaceMouse
ROTPS
4
Contouring
3D View
3D View
Eclipse Version 8.9
Targets &
Organ At
Risk
5
Repetitive Stress Injury
6
Modifications in Mouse
7
Aim of the StudyIn the era of sophisticated treatment planning, all
radiation oncologists have to spend much of their time with treatment planning systems to contour the targets and organ at risks.
Most common used device for human computer interface is mouse (Mo).
To replace mouse a new device is available in the market known as Pen Tablet (PT) from Wacom or i-ball.
This study was done to find out the effectiveness of these devices on a TPS for volume and Time taken for contouring.
8
Material and Methods 10 patients original CT scans in the Eclipse
Treatment Planning System (version 8.9) at our centre were selected on which IMRT treatment was already delivered in this year.
All CT scans do have 3 mm inter-slice distance.
A total of five organs were contoured separately with both devices on each CT scan.
Organs were Eyes (left and right), Optic Nerves (left and right) and Brain Stem.
9
Time was calculated with stop watch for contouring all five organs in one CT scan by both devices.
Volumes of organs were measured on TPS and compared between both devices.
During contouring of Organ by right hand through Mouse, the middle figure was using the central scroll of mouse to move CT slices up and down and while contouring with pen Tablet by right hand, left hand was using mouse scroll button for up and down movements.
Material and Methods.
10
Tamplate for Mouse
Contouring with Mouse
11
Tamplate for Pen Tablet
Contouring with Pen Tablet
12
Contouring with both
Volume Contour by Mouse Contour by Pen Tablet
CT Scan BSOpt N_Lt
Opt N_Rt
Eye_Lt
Eye_Rt BS
Opt N_Lt
Opt N_Rt
Eye_Lt
Eye_Rt
1 20.15 0.39 0.57 8.08 8.59 21.81 0.46 0.49 8.78 7.782 31.26 0.59 0.84 10.67 10.27 30.47 0.88 1.10 10.59 9.603 33.97 0.62 0.66 9.91 9.83 30.82 0.42 0.57 9.47 9.394 26.31 0.43 0.48 9.43 9.73 21.89 0.60 0.35 9.72 9.635 21.78 0.45 0.61 10.29 11.3 19.28 0.54 0.46 10.52 10.296 20.07 0.36 0.51 9.55 8.82 20.43 0.48 0.39 9.20 9.007 22.03 0.23 0.25 9.92 9.74 21.83 0.45 0.43 9.57 9.908 21.41 0.40 0.31 8.64 8.72 20.68 0.54 0.45 8.19 8.619 29.81 0.64 0.44 9.91 10.26 27.04 0.53 0.52 10.44 10.04
10 18.14 0.53 0.48 9.11 9.28 18.67 0.41 0.53 9.17 9.43Average 24.49 0.46 0.51 9.55 9.65 23.29 0.53 0.52 9.56 9.36
Table 1.-Volumes
CT scan no
Time Mo Total (sec)
Time PT Time (sec)
Time diff. Time diff. (Sec)
1 4m 23s 263 2m 32s 152 1m 51s 1112 4m 32s 272 2m 21s 141 2m 11s 1313 5m 52s 352 2m 52s 172 3m 0s 1804 4m 42s 282 2m 34s 154 2m 8s 1285 5m 54s 354 2m 51s 171 3m 3s 1836 4m 46s 286 2m 33s 153 2m 13s 1337 4m 53s 293 2m 15s 135 2m 38s 1588 4m 18s 258 2m 42s 162 1m 36s 969 4m 49s 289 2m 37s 157 2m 12s 132
10 4m 15s 255 2m 25s 145 1m 50s 110Tot. 48m 24s 2904 25m 42s 1542 22m 42s 1362
Table 2- Time taken.
Volume Contour by Mouse Contour by Pen Tablet
CT Scan BSOpt N_Lt
Opt N_Rt
Eye_Lt
Eye_Rt BS
Opt N_Lt
Opt N_Rt
Eye_Lt
Eye_Rt
1 15 3 3 9 9 16 2 3 10 92 19 3 3 9 10 18 3 3 10 93 18 3 3 9 9 18 3 3 9 94 17 3 3 9 9 16 3 3 10 105 17 3 3 10 12 17 3 2 11 126 16 3 3 10 10 16 3 3 10 97 18 3 2 11 11 18 3 3 10 108 17 3 2 9 9 17 3 3 9 109 17 2 3 10 10 16 3 3 10 10
10 15 2 3 10 10 15 2 3 10 11Average 169 28 28 96 99 167 28 29 99 99
Tab.3-No. of slices contoured
Total slice Contoured slice by slice 842
16
ResultsThe average volumes of Organs were as
follows. Brainstem (Mo-24.29 cc: PT-23.29cc), Optic Nerve Left (Mo-0.46 cc: PT-0.53 cc), Optic Nerve Right (Mo-0.51 cc: PT-0.53 cc), Eye Left (Mo-9.55 cc: PT-9.56 cc), Eye Right (Mo-9.65 cc: PT-9.36 cc).
Average time taken for contouring of all five organs by mouse in ten CT scans was 4 min 50 seconds (290 + 35 seconds) while time taken by Pen Tablet was 2 min 25 seconds (154 + 12 seconds).
17
ResultsThe total time spent by contouring of all CT
scan by mouse was 48 min 24 seconds and by PT was 25 min 42 seconds.
Hence the total time gain for these small volumes was 22 min 42 seconds.
18
ConclusionThe volumes of organs contoured by both
devices are nearly similar. The smoothness in contouring is far superior
in pen tablet as compared to mouse. The time utilization is better with Pen tablet as
shown by this study which is nearly half as compared to mouse.
Pen Tablet can be used in contouring for effectively utilizing the limited time available with radiation oncologist during treatment planning in any busy centre.
19
Discussion of difference.Basic working- ErgonomicsMouse – point –line -point fashionPen tablet –point-point constant working
Practical Working of mouse Vs pen tablet
20
Take home messagePen tablet effectively uses limited time with
more smoothness.
2D Pic -Curtsey- Prof. Dr O. P Singh, GMC Bhopal.
2 Dimensional EBRT 3D Conformal EBRT
21
Future of Radiation Contouring
Curtsey -Dr Martin Fuss MD , Oregon Health & Science University , Portland, USA. And Wacom Cintiq
22
My Pen tablet
> 300 patients are treated with help of contouring done by this pen tablet.
My Pen Tablet- from i-Ball.
23
My Personal Experience
1.With mouse Contouring targets + OAR –Slice by Slice- 4 to 6 hours.
2.With pen tablet Contouring targets + OAR –Slice by Slice- 2 to 3 hours
3.With pen tablet Contouring Target + OAR- 2th or 3rd slice contouring and interpolation then=
45 minutes to 1.5 hours.
24
“THANKS A LOT”
Established since Jan 2011
Whole Radiation teamTreated > 600 patients in two years
