No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Process-based quality management for clinical implementation of adaptive radiotherapy
3. T. K. Yeung, K. Bortolotto, S. Cosby, M. Hoar, and E. Lederer, “Quality assurance in radiotherapy: Evaluation of errors and incidents recorded over a 10 year period,” Radiother. Oncol. 74, 283–291 (2005).
4. J. F. Williamson, P. B. Dunscombe, M. B. Sharpe, B. R. Thomadsen, J. A. Purdy, and J. A. Deye, “Quality assurance needs for modern image-based radiotherapy: Recommendations from 2007 interorganizational symposium on “quality assurance of radiation therapy: challenges of advanced technology”,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 71, S2–S12 (2008).
5. S. A. Terezakis, P. Pronovost, K. Harris, T. Deweese, and E. Ford, “Safety strategies in an academic radiation oncology department and recommendations for action,” Joint Commission J. Quality Patient Safety/Joint Commission Resources 37, 291–299 (2011).
6. M. S. Huq, B. A. Fraass, P. B. Dunscombe, J. P. Gibbons, Jr., G. S. Ibbott, P. M. Medin, A. Mundt, S. Mutic, J. R. Palta, B. R. Thomadsen, J. F. Williamson, and E. D. Yorke, “A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 71, S170–S173 (2008).
7. B. R. Thomadsen, P. Dunscombe, E. Ford, S. Huq, T. Pawlicki, and S. Sutlief, “Risk assessment using TG-100 methodology Table 4-3,” Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy: Learning New Approaches in Task Group 100 and Beyond, AAPM Monograph No. 36 (AAPM, Madison, WI, 2013), pp. 95–112.
8. L. Santanam, R. S. Brame, A. Lindsey, T. Dewees, J. Danieley, J. Labrash, P. Parikh, J. Bradley, I. Zoberi, J. Michalski, and S. Mutic, “Eliminating inconsistencies in simulation and treatment planning orders in radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 85, 484–491 (2013).
9. L. B. Mallalieu, A. Kapur, A. Sharma, L. Potters, A. Jamshidi, and J. Pinsky, “An electronic whiteboard and associated databases for physics workflow coordination in a paperless, multi-site radiation oncology department,” Med. Phys. 38, 3755 (2011).
11. C. Peng, G. Chen, E. Ahunbay, D. Wang, C. Lawton, and X. A. Li, “Validation of an online replanning technique for prostate adaptive radiotherapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 3659–3668 (2011).
13. X. Zhu, Y. Ge, T. Li, D. Thongphiew, F. F. Yin, and Q. J. Wu, “A planning quality evaluation tool for prostate adaptive IMRT based on machine learning,” Med. Phys. 38, 719–726 (2011).
14. K. L. Moore, R. S. Brame, D. A. Low, and S. Mutic, “Experience-based quality control of clinical intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 81, 545–551 (2011).
15. C. E. Noel, V. R. Gutti, W. Bosch, S. Mutic, E. Ford, S. Terezakis, and L. Santanam, “Quality Assurance With Plan Veto: Reincarnation of a Record and Verify System and Its Potential Value,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol., Phys. 88, 1161–1166 (2014).
16. B. Sun, D. Rangaraj, S. Boddu, M. Goddu, D. Yang, G. Palaniswaamy, S. Yaddanapudi, O. Wooten, and S. Mutic, “Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 13 (2012).
17. E. C. Ford, S. Terezakis, A. Souranis, K. Harris, H. Gay, and S. Mutic, “Quality control quantification (QCQ): A tool to measure the value of quality control checks in radiation oncology,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 84, e263–e269 (2012).
18. T. Fuangrod, D. J. O’Connor, B. M. C. McCurdy, and P. B. Greer, “Development of EPID-based real time dose verification for dynamic IMRT,” World Acad. Sci., Eng. Technol. 80, 609 (2011).
19. M. K. Islam, B. D. Norrlinger, J. R. Smale, R. K. Heaton, D. Galbraith, C. Fan, and D. A. Jaffray, “An integral quality monitoring system for real-time verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy,” Med. Phys. 36, 5420–5428 (2009).
20. M. Goulet, L. Gingras, and L. Beaulieu, “Real-time verification of multileaf collimator-driven radiotherapy using a novel optical attenuation-based fluence monitor,” Med. Phys. 38, 1459–1467 (2011).
21. J. H. Wong, I. Fuduli, M. Carolan, M. Petasecca, M. L. Lerch, V. L. Perevertaylo, P. Metcalfe, and A. B. Rosenfeld, “Characterization of a novel two dimensional diode array the “magic plate” as a radiation detector for radiation therapy treatment,” Med. Phys. 39, 2544–2558 (2012).
22. Y. Jiang, X. Gu, C. Men, X. Jia, R. Li, J. Lewis, and S. Jiang, “Real-time dose reconstruction for treatment monitoring [abstract],” Med. Phys. 37, 3400 (2010).
23. T. Pawlicki, S. Yoo, L. E. Court, S. K. McMillan, R. K. Rice, J. D. Russell, J. M. Pacyniak, M. K. Woo, P. S. Basran, J. Shoales, and A. L. Boyer, “Moving from IMRT QA measurements toward independent computer calculations using control charts,” Radiother. Oncol. 89, 330–337 (2008).
24. L. Xing and J. G. Li, “Computer verification of fluence map for intensity modulated radiation therapy,” Med. Phys. 27, 2084–2092 (2000).
Article metrics loading...
Intensity-modulated adaptive radiotherapy (ART) has been the focus of considerable research and developmental work due to its potential therapeutic benefits. However, in light of its unique quality assurance (QA) challenges, no one has described a robust framework for its clinical implementation. In fact, recent position papers by ASTRO and AAPM have firmly endorsed pretreatment patient-specific IMRT QA, which limits the feasibility of online ART. The authors aim to address these obstacles by applying failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to identify high-priority errors and appropriate risk-mitigation strategies for clinical implementation of intensity-modulated ART.
An experienced team of two clinical medical physicists, one clinical engineer, and one radiation oncologist was assembled to perform a standard FMEA for intensity-modulated ART. A set of 216 potential radiotherapy failures composed by the forthcoming AAPM task group 100 (TG-100) was used as the basis. Of the 216 failures, 127 were identified as most relevant to an ART scheme. Using the associated TG-100 FMEA values as a baseline, the team considered how the likeliness of occurrence (O), outcome severity (S), and likeliness of failure being undetected (D) would change for ART. New risk priority numbers (RPN) were calculated. Failures characterized by RPN ≥ 200 were identified as potentially critical.
FMEA revealed that ART RPN increased for 38% (n = 48/127) of potential failures, with 75% (n = 36/48) attributed to failures in the segmentation and treatment planning processes. Forty-three of 127 failures were identified as potentially critical. Risk-mitigation strategies include implementing a suite of quality control and decision support software, specialty QA software/hardware tools, and an increase in specially trained personnel.
Results of the FMEA-based risk assessment demonstrate that intensity-modulated ART introduces different (but not necessarily more) risks than standard IMRT and may be safely implemented with the proper mitigations.
Full text loading...
Most read this month