3342 - Enhancing TG-263 Target Naming Accuracy: A WPF Application for Resident Training

Purpose/Objective(s): Accurate and standardized target naming in radiation oncology is critical for communication, treatment reproducibility, and patient safety. AAPM Task Group 263 (TG-263) established nomenclature guidelines to reduce inconsistencies, yet variability persists. Mislabeling or ambiguous names can lead to errors in treatment planning, dose prescription, and outcome assessment. Despite these guidelines, medical residents struggle with proper naming due to limited formal education as well as the complexity of anatomical and dosimetric variations. To address this, we developed a software tool that assists physicians in generating TG-263-compliant names during contouring. This study evaluates residents’ knowledge of TG-263 naming and assesses the tool’s impact on accuracy and consistency. By comparing manual and software-assisted naming, we aim to quantify improvements and explore how technology can enhance training and clinical workflow.

Materials/Methods: We developed a .NET-based WPF application integrated with a treatment planning system to generate TG-263 compliant target names in real time during contouring. The tool features an intuitive graphical interface with checkboxes, combo boxes, and selectors that allow physicians to define key target parameters (e.g., anatomical location, margin size, dose level). Based on these selections, a standardized target name is automatically generated and displayed. In a pilot study, five medical residents were first asked to manually generate target names for twenty clinical scenarios. They then used our tool to generate names for the same scenarios. Accuracy and consistency were recorded for comparative analysis.

Results: Five medical residents named clinical targets for twenty hypothetical scenarios of varying difficulty. Without the target naming tool, the group achieved a pooled mean accuracy of 54%. With the tool, pooled mean accuracy improved to 95%. A paired t-test was performed to assess the statistical significance of this improvement, yielding a p-value of 0.006, demonstrating a significant enhancement in target naming accuracy.

Conclusion: Preliminary findings indicate that manual target naming resulted in a compliance rate of 54%, while the use of the target naming tool improved compliance to 95%. These results suggest that integrating this tool into clinical workflows not only enhances naming accuracy, but also serves as an effective educational resource for residents. Further studies involving larger cohorts are necessary to validate these outcomes and assess the long-term impacts on educational efficacy, clinical workflow efficiency, and treatment planning safety.