Search

The clinical use of surface imaging has increased dramatically, with demonstrated utility for initial patient positioning, real-time motion monitoring, and beam gating in a variety of anatomical sites. The Therapy Physics Subcommittee and the Imaging for Treatment Verification Working Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 302 to review the current clinical uses of surface imaging and emerging clinical applications. The specific charge of this task group was to provide technical guidelines for clinical indications of use for general positioning, breast deep-inspiration breath hold treatment, and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery. Additionally, the task group was charged with providing commissioning and on-going quality assurance (QA) requirements for surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) as part of a comprehensive QA program including risk assessment. Workflow considerations for other anatomic sites and for computed tomography simulation, including motion management, are also discussed. Finally, developing clinical applications, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or proton radiotherapy, are presented. The recommendations made in this report, which are summarized at the end of the report, are applicable to all video-based SGRT systems available at the time of writing.

Purpose This study aimed to perform a longitudinal analysis of linear accelerator (linac) technical faults reported with a cloud-based Machine Log system in use in a busy academic clinic and derive operational insights related to linac reliability, clinical utilization, and performance. Methods We queried the Machine Log system for the following parameters: linac type, number of reported technical faults, types of fault, number of faults where the linac was disabled, and estimated clinical downtime. The number of fractions treated and monitor units (MU) delivered were obtained from the record and verify system as metrics of linac utilization and to normalize the number of reported linac faults, facilitating inter-comparison. Two Varian TrueBeam C-arm linacs (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), one Varian 21iX C-arm linac (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), and one newly installed Varian Halcyon ring gantry linac (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) were evaluated. The linacs were studied over a 30-month period from September 2017 to March 2020.  Results Over 30 months, comprising 677 clinical days, 1234 faults were reported from all linacs, including 153 "linac down" events requiring rescheduling or cancellation of treatments. The TrueBeam linacs reported nearly twice as many imaging, multileaf collimator (MLC), and beam generation faults per fraction, and MU as the Halcyon. Halcyon experienced fewer beam generation/steering, accessory, and cooling-related faults than the other linacs but reported more computer and networking issues. Although it employs a relatively new MLC design compared to the C-arm linacs and delivers primarily intensity-modulated treatments, Halcyon reported fewer MLC faults than the other linacs. The 21iX linac had the fewest software-related faults but was subject to the most cooling-related faults, which we attributed to extensive use of this linac for treatment techniques with extended beam-on times. Conclusions A longitudinal analysis of a cloud-based Machine Log system yielded operational insights into the utilization, performance, and technical reliability of the linacs in use at our institution. Several trends in linac sub-system reliability were identified and could be attributed to either age, design, clinical use, or operational demands. The results of this analysis will be used as a basis for designing linac quality assurance schedules that reflect actual linac usage and observed sub-system reliability. Such a practice may contribute to a clinic workflow subject to fewer disruptions from linac faults, ultimately improving efficiency and patient safety.

Purpose/objectivesThree-dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.Materials/methodsA search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.ResultsOne hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1-42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P

PurposeTo provide insight into the types of questions asked to medical physicists by patients during one-on-one physicist-patient consults at one institution.Materials and methodsMedical physicists trained in patient communication techniques met with patients to provide an overview of the treatment planning and delivery processes, discuss the patient's treatment plan, and answer any technical questions. From August 2016 to December 2019, 152 physicist-patient consults were conducted. In the initial months of the study (August 2016-December 2017), following each physicist-patient consult, all patient questions were documented by the physicists. For the remaining time period (January 2018-December 2019), any newly encountered questions were periodically added to the list. The questions were compiled into a comprehensive list and organized into categories.ResultsThere were a total of 88 unique patient questions. These questions fit into four topical categories. Fifty-four questions (61.4%) were in the "Treatment Planning and Delivery Questions" category, 15 questions (17.1%) were in the "General Radiation Questions or Concerns" category, 13 questions (14.8%) were in the "Safety and Quality Assurance Questions" category, and 6 questions (6.8%) were in the "Medical Questions" category. Overall, patients were primarily concerned about how radiation works, the treatment planning and delivery processes, and what is being done to keep them safe throughout their treatment.ConclusionPhysicist-patient consults provided an opportunity to address the technical aspects of radiation therapy with patients in greater detail. The fact that patient questions could be conveniently grouped into only four topical categories indicates that it may be straightforward for other medical physicists to prepare for effectively addressing technical questions during physicist-patient consults.

PurposeTo assess the performance of routine cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) quality assurance (QA) at predicting and diagnosing clinically recognizable linac CBCT image quality issues.MethodsMonthly automated linac CBCT image quality QA data were acquired on eight Varian linacs (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) using the CATPHAN 500 series phantom (The Phantom Laboratory, Inc., Greenwich, NY) and Total QA software (Image Owl, Inc., Greenwich, NY) over 34 months between July 2014 and May 2017. For each linac, the following image quality metrics were acquired: geometric distortion, spatial resolution, Hounsfield Unit (HU) constancy, uniformity, and noise. Quality control (QC) limits were determined by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) expert consensus documents Task Group (TG-142 and TG-179) and the manufacturer acceptance testing procedure. Clinically recognizable CBCT issues were extracted from the in-house incident learning system (ILS) and service reports. The sensitivity and specificity of CATPHAN QA at predicting clinically recognizable image quality issues was investigated. Sensitivity was defined as the percentage of clinically recognizable CBCT image quality issues that followed a failing CATPHAN QA. Quality assurance results are categorized as failing if one or more image quality metrics are outside the QC limits. The specificity of CATPHAN QA was defined as one minus the fraction of failing CATPHAN QA results that did not have a clinically recognizable CBCT image quality issue in the subsequent month. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each image quality metric by plotting the true positive rate (TPR) against the false-positive rate (FPR).ResultsOver the study period, 18 image quality issues were discovered by clinicians while using CBCT to set up the patient and five were reported prior to x-ray tube repair. The incidents ranged from ring artifacts to uniformity problems. The sensitivity of the TG-142/179 limits was 17% (four of the prior monthly QC tests detected a clinically recognizable image quality issue). The area under the curve (AUC) calculated for each image quality metric ROC curve was: 0.85 for uniformity, 0.66 for spatial resolution, 0.51 for geometric distortion, 0.56 for noise, 0.73 for HU constancy, and 0.59 for contrast resolution.ConclusionAutomated monthly QA is not a good predictor of CBCT image quality issues. Of the available metrics, uniformity has the best predictive performance, but still has a high FPR and low sensitivity. The poor performance of CATPHAN QA as a predictor of image quality problems is partially due to its reliance on region-of-interest (ROI) based algorithms and a lack of a global algorithm such as correlation. The manner in which image quality issues occur (trending toward failure or random) is still not known and should be studied further. CBCT image quality QA should be adapted based on how CBCT is used clinically.

ObjectivesTo develop a training program designed to meet the specific needs of medical physicists as they transition into a clinical role with direct patient care responsibilities.Materials and methodsThe training program was designed in collaboration with the faculty at the UC San Diego School of Medicine and incorporates training techniques that have been shown to be effective in improving communication skills. The program emphasizes experiential, practice-based learning over didactic presentations.ResultsThe training program is comprised of 5 components: 1) a 1-day Clinician-Patient Communication Workshop run by the UC San Diego School of Medicine, 2) Communication Strategies for Radiation Oncology, which consists of two, 2-hour sessions designed to provide trainees with patient communication skills that are specific to patient interactions in radiation oncology, 3) Simulated Patient Interactions, in which trainees perform mock physicist-patient consults with trained patient actors, 4) Faculty-Observed Patient Consults, and 5) a Case-Based Treatment Toxicity Course. A competency assessment mechanism was also developed to provide a clear set of objectives and to guide trainer feedback. [Correction added after first online publication on November 7, 2018: The phrase ", which consists of two, 2-hour" was added above.] CONCLUSIONS: The training program that we have developed incorporates an array of established education techniques and provides a comprehensive, accessible, means of improving medical physicists' patient communication skills.

Optical surface imaging is a nonradiographic, noninvasive technology for continuous localization of patients during radiation therapy. Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) has been applied to many treatment sites including breast, intracranial, head and neck, and extremities. SGRT enables a reduction of initial setup variability, provides verification of immobilization continuously during treatment including at noncoplanar linac gantry angles, and provides dynamic surface information for use in gated and breath-hold treatment techniques, all of which can permit reductions in the margins required to account for target localization uncertainty. Ancillary benefits from surface imaging include the ability to use immobilization techniques that confer greater comfort to patients, a reduction in imaging dose through reduced radiographic localization requirements, and improvements to the speed, efficiency, and safety of clinical workflows. This review will describe the objectives of SGRT, review the commercially available surface imaging systems, and provide an overview of SGRT applications by treatment site. Limitations and future applications of surfacing imaging systems are also discussed.

PurposeTo analyze all recalls involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recall database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology device recalls to identify discipline-specific trends that may inform improvements in device safety.Methods and materialsRecall data on RODs from 2002 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems). Outcomes included determined cause of recall, recall class (severity), quantity in commerce, time until recall termination (date FDA determines recall is complete), and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions.ResultsThere were 502 ROD recalls and 9534 other class II device recalls during 2002 to 2015. Most recalls were for external beam devices (66.7%) and planning systems (22.9%), and recall events peaked in 2011. Radiation oncology devices differed significantly from other devices in all recall outcomes (P≤.04). Recall cause was commonly software related (49% vs 10% for other devices). Recall severity was more often moderate among RODs (97.6% vs 87.2%) instead of severe (0.2% vs 4.4%; P

PurposeRadiation oncology relies on rapidly evolving technology and highly complex processes. The US Food and Drug Administration collects reports of adverse events related to medical devices. We sought to characterize all events involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology devices.Methods and materialsMAUDE data on RODs from 1991 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems) and 5 device problem categories (software, mechanical, electrical, user error, and dose delivery impact). Outcomes included whether the device was evaluated by the manufacturer, adverse event type, remedial action, problem code, device age, and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by the Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions.ResultsThere were 4234 ROD and 4,985,698 other device adverse event reports. Adverse event reports increased over time, and events involving RODs peaked in 2011. Most ROD reports involved external beam therapy (50.8%), followed by brachytherapy (24.9%) and treatment planning systems (21.6%). The top problem types were software (30.4%), mechanical (20.9%), and user error (20.4%). RODs differed significantly from other devices in each outcome (P

The purpose of this study was to develop dosimetry verification procedures for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based total marrow irradiation (TMI). The VMAT based TMI plans were generated for three patients: one child and two adults. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as bony skeleton, from head to mid-femur, with a 3 mm margin. The plan strategy similar to published studies was adopted. The PTV was divided into head and neck, chest, and pelvic regions, with separate plans each of which is composed of 2-3 arcs/fields. Multiple isocenters were evenly distributed along the patient's axial direction. The focus of this study is to establish a dosimetry quality assurance procedure involving both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) volumetric verifications, which is desirable for a large PTV treated with multiple isocenters. The 2D dose verification was performed with film for gamma evaluation and absolute point dose was measured with ion chamber, with attention to the junction between neighboring plans regarding hot/cold spots. The 3D volumetric dose verification used commercial dose reconstruction software to reconstruct dose from electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) images. The gamma evaluation criteria in both 2D and 3D verification were 5% absolute point dose difference and 3 mm of distance to agreement. With film dosimetry, the overall average gamma passing rate was 98.2% and absolute dose difference was 3.9% in junction areas among the test patients; with volumetric portal dosimetry, the corresponding numbers were 90.7% and 2.4%. A dosimetry verification procedure involving both 2D and 3D was developed for VMAT-based TMI. The initial results are encouraging and warrant further investigation in clinical trials.

We have employed a frameless localization system for intracranial radiosurgery, utilizing a custom biteblock with fiducial markers and an infra-red camera for set-up and monitoring patient position. For multiple brain metastases or large irregular lesions, we use a single-isocenter intensity-modulated approach. We report our quality assurance measurements and our experience using Intensity Modulated Radiosurgery (IMRS) to treat such intracranial lesions. A phantom with integrated targets and fiducial markers was utilized to test the positional accuracy of the system. The frameless localization system was used for patient setup and target localization as well as for motion monitoring during treatment. Inverse optimization planning gave satisfactory dose coverage and critical organ sparing. Patient setup was guided by the infrared camera through fine adjustment in three translational and three rotational degrees for isocenter localization and verified by orthogonal kilovoltage (kV) images, taken before treatment to ensure the accuracy of treatment. The relative localization of the camera based system was verified to be highly accurate along three translational directions of couch motion and couch rotation. After verification, we began treating patients with this technique. About 8–12 properly selected fixed beams with a single isocenter were sufficient to achieve good dose coverage and organ sparing. Portal dosimetry with an Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and kV images provided excellent quality assurance for the IMRS plan and patient setup. The treatment time was less than 60 min to deliver doses of 16–20 Gy in a single fraction. The camera-based system was verified for positional accuracy and was deemed sufficiently accurate for stereotactic treatments. Single isocenter IMRS treatment of multiple brain metastases or large irregular lesions can be done within an acceptable treatment time and gives the benefits of dose-conformity and organ-sparing, easy plan QA, and patient setup verification.

Systems‐theoretic process analysis (STPA) is a prospective safety assessment tool increasingly applied in healthcare. A problem hampering STPA proliferation is the difficulty of modeling systems for analysis by creating control structures. In this work, a method is proposed to use existing process maps—commonly available in healthcare—when creating a control structure. The proposed method entails (1) extract information from the process map, (2) determine the modeling boundary of the control structure, (3) transfer the extracted information to the control structure, (4) add additional information to complete the control structure. Two case studies were conducted: (1) ambulance patient offloading in the emergency department and (2) ischemic stroke care with intravenous thrombolysis. The amount of process map‐derived information in the control structures was quantified. On average, 68% of the information in the final control structures was derived from the process map. Additional control actions and feedback were added from nonprocess map sources for management and frontline controllers. Despite the differences between process maps and control structures, much of the information in a process map can be used when creating a control structure. The method enables the creation of a control structure from a process map to be done in a structured fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]