5/6/24, 11:12 AM
Survey: "Image Fusion (MR, PET, etc) Evaluation"
Reviewer:
Reviewee:
Survey Period:
Completed:
1. Please assign each task a score of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory.
Unsatisfactory in any essential task constitutes competency failure.
The student will repeat the competency at a later date.
Imports the secondary data set in preparation for accurate
image registration with the primary image set.
Reviews the anatomy on the image sets and seeks input from
the physician and/or patient history to accurately identify the
primary area of concern.
Identifies the correct features on the corresponding images to
assist with the image fusion process (e.g. tumor mass, bony
anatomy, etc.).
Closely aligns the target anatomy on the image sets in all 3
planes (applying correct directional alignment to include up,
down, left, right and rotation)
Fuses the two image sets using the software tools provided to
obtain a reliable rigid registration.
Evaluates the final image registration to assure appropriate
matching and orientation of the area of interest.
Mean: 2.00 of 2 Points: 12 Score: 100.0%
about:blank
Typhon Group - EASI System
Clinical Instructors (LAW, Camille)
Students (Ahmed, Muna)
2/15/2024
2/15/2024 12:33:11 PM CT
Satisfactory [2 pts]
Additional Comments: Muna looked at the sim order
(requested most recent MRI) and the SSG procedures to
determine that she needed to fuse the 3D T1 post, axial T1
post, Axial T2 flair. Brain hypo and verified that it was a 1 mm
slice CT scan.
Satisfactory [2 pts]
Additional Comments: She reviewed the isocenter placement
based on the simulation, plus ventricles, brainstem, and skull.
The DOD approves the isocenter placement based on where the
RTT placed it. Sim orders and the initial consul report state
where the treatment is - Muna isn't sure she verified this for
placement but knows we can trust but should always verify.
Muna knows that the scan date should be within 2 weeks of the
CT and noticed that the scan date was past the 2-week mark.
She followed up with the senior planner to inform her of the
dates, and no additional appointments scheduled, and asked if
the MD wanted to wait for a new scan or proceed with what was
in there.
Satisfactory [2 pts]
Additional Comments: See above; used the MSK brain setup
workflow. She placed the primary scan as the Ax 3D T1 post
because this had the most number of slices.
Satisfactory [2 pts]
Additional Comments: The senior mentioned she made a minor
change on one of the scans, but Muna's fusion for the
remainder was good. Because this was a minor change with
the unlikelihood of volume changes this is acceptable.
Satisfactory [2 pts]
Additional Comments: She used the box-based assist,
spyglass, and tab feature to alternate between the two scans
she was fusing.
Satisfactory [2 pts]
Additional Comments: Fusion was straightforward, number of
slices differed between MR and CT so had to focus on whether
or not it was a blurring issue or difference in the fusion
orientation. Started at the ventricles to make sure sup/inf,
left/right, and make sure the skull/eye bone didn't have a
drastic difference. The sup/inf was off at first where you could
see the entire ventricle, so she re-ran the box fusion to ensure
no sup inf shift. Sagittal and frontal view to make sure the
structures were aligned well.
1/2
5/6/24, 11:12 AM Typhon Group - EASI System
2. Overall rating:

Pass [2 pts]
If applicable, please specify reason for failure: Muna has completed 7 fusions for development and 6
clinical cases of variety (brain and HN). Muna's comments: she said the training was good and she did
more than the recommended so she could feel comfortable with the process. She overall did a nice job
on the comp. Muna filled out the Special Physics consult report (SPC), but there was a typo with the
word "Flair" so the senior fixed it. No additional notes were needed since it was a straightforward
fusion. Senior feedback: how was her overall communication? Excellent how would you say your
knowledge is on the fusion process? Good how was her fusion for the different studies? Overall is good
—I made a minor adjustment on one out of the three fusion studies. how were the contents of the SPC?
There was one typo in the “study description” Any other feedback you wish to share? None.

Mean: 2.00 of 2 Points: 2 Score: 100.0%

Total points for all rating scale questions: 14

Mean percentage score for all rating scale questions: 100.0%
(Each main question equally weighted)
Responses as of 5/6/2024 11:12:03 AM CT

about:blank 2/2