Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) is commonly used to mitigate effects of anatomical change during head and neck (H&N) radiotherapy. The process of identifying patients for ART can be subjective and resource-intensive. This feasibility project aims to design and validate a pipeline to automate the process and use it to assess the current clinical pathway for H&N treatments.

The pipeline analysed patients’ on-set cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans to identify inter-fractional anatomical changes. CBCTs were converted into synthetic CTs, contours were automatically generated, and the original plan was recomputed. Each synthetic CT was evaluated against a set of dosimetric goals, with failed goals causing an ART recommendation.

To validate pipeline performance, a ‘gold standard’ was synthesised by recomputing patients’ original plans on a rescan-CT acquired during treatment and identifying failed clinical goals. The pipeline sensitivity and specificity compared to this ‘gold standard’ were calculated for 12 ART patients. The pipeline was then run on a cohort of 12 ART and 14 non-ART patients, and its sensitivity and specificity were instead calculated against the clinical decision made.

The pipeline showed good agreement with the synthesised ‘gold standard’ with an optimum sensitivity of 0·83 and specificity of 0·67. When run over a cohort containing both ART and non-ART patients and assessed against the subjective clinical decision made, the pipeline showed no predictive power (sensitivity: 0·58, specificity: 0·47).

Good agreement with the ‘gold standard’ gives confidence in pipeline performance and disagreement with clinical decisions implies implementation could help standardise the current clinical pathway.

This project developed and validated an automated pipeline for prostate treatments to accurately determine which patients could benefit from adaptive radiotherapy (ART) using synthetic CTs (sCTs) generated from on-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) images.

The automated pipeline converted CBCTs to sCTs utilising deep-learning, for accurate dose recalculation. Deformable image registration mapped contours from the planning CT to the sCT, with the treatment plan recalculated. A pass/fail assessment used relevant clinical goals. A fail threshold indicated ART was required. All acquired CBCTs (230 sCTs) for 31 patients (6 who had ART) were assessed for pipeline accuracy and clinical viability, comparing clinical outcomes to pipeline outcomes.

The pipeline distinguished patients requiring ART; 74·4% of sCTs for ART patients were red (failure) results, compared to 6·4% of non-ART sCTs. The receiver operator characteristic area under curve was 0·98, demonstrating high performance. The automated pipeline was statistically significantly (p < 0·05) quicker than the current clinical assessment methods (182·5s and 556·4s, respectively), and deformed contour accuracy was acceptable, with 96·6% of deformed clinical target volumes (CTVs) clinically acceptable.

The automated pipeline identified patients who required ART with high accuracy while reducing time and resource requirements. This could reduce departmental workload and increase efficiency and personalisation of patient treatments. Further work aims to apply the pipeline to other treatment sites and investigate its potential for taking into account dose accumulation.

Trauma is prevalent amongst early psychosis patients and associated with adverse outcomes. Past trials of trauma-focused therapy have focused on chronic patients with psychosis/schizophrenia and comorbid Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). We aimed to determine the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for psychosis (EMDRp) intervention for early psychosis service users.

A single-blind RCT comparing 16 sessions of EMDRp + TAU v. TAU only was conducted. Participants completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month post-randomization assessments. EMDRp and trial assessments were delivered both in-person and remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment and retention, therapy attendance/engagement, adherence to EMDRp treatment protocol, and the ‘promise of efficacy’ of EMDRp on relevant clinical outcomes.

Sixty participants (100% of the recruitment target) received TAU or EMDR + TAU. 83% completed at least one follow-up assessment, with 74% at 6-month and 70% at 12-month. 74% of EMDRp + TAU participants received at least eight therapy sessions and 97% rated therapy sessions demonstrated good treatment fidelity. At 6-month, there were signals of promise of efficacy of EMDRp + TAU v. TAU for total psychotic symptoms (PANSS), subjective recovery from psychosis, PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, and general health status. Signals of efficacy at 12-month were less pronounced but remained robust for PTSD symptoms and general health status.

The trial feasibility criteria were fully met, and EMDRp was associated with promising signals of efficacy on a range of valuable clinical outcomes. A larger-scale, multi-center trial of EMDRp is feasible and warranted.

The patient experience of radiotherapy magnetic resonance (MR) simulation is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the patient experience of MR simulation in comparison to computed tomography (CT) simulation, identifying the quality of patient experience and pathway changes which could improve patient experience outcomes.

MR simulation was acquired for 46 anal and rectal cancer patients. Patient experience questionnaires were provided directly after MR simulation. Questionnaire responses were assessed after 33 patients (cohort one). Changes to the scanning pathway were identified and implemented. The impact of changes was assessed by cohort two (13 patients).

Response rates were 85% (cohort one) and 54% (cohort two). 75% of cohort one respondents found the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) experience to be better or similar to their CT experience. Implemented changes included routine use of blankets, earplugs and headphones, music and feet-first positioning and further MRI protocol optimisation. All cohort two respondents found the MRI experience to be better or similar to the CT experience.

MR simulation can be a comfortable and positive experience that is comparable to that of standard radiotherapy CT simulation. Special attention is required due to the fundamental differences between CT and MRI scanning.