Search

Our purpose was to investigate the effect of physicist-patient consults on patient anxiety and patient satisfaction with a randomized prospective phase III clinical trial.Sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to the physics direct patient care (PDPC) arm or the control arm of the trial. Patients assigned to the PDPC arm received 2 physicist-patient consults to educate them on the technical aspects of their radiation therapy, while patients assigned to the control arm received the standard of care (ie, standard radiation therapy workflow without any additional physicist-patient consults). Questionnaires were administered to all patients at 4 time points (after enrollment, after the simulation, after the first treatment, and after the last treatment) to assess anxiety and satisfaction.The decrease in anxiety for the PDPC arm, compared with the control arm, was statistically significant at the first treatment (P = .027) time point. The increase in technical satisfaction for the PDPC arm, compared with the control arm, was statistically significant at the simulation (P = .005), first treatment (P.001), and last treatment (P = .002) time points. The increase in overall satisfaction for the PDPC arm, compared with the control arm, was statistically significant at the first treatment (P = .014) and last treatment (P = .001) time points.Physicist-patient consults improved the patient experience by decreasing anxiety and increasing satisfaction. Future work is needed to modify current radiation oncology workflows and medical physics responsibilities to allow all patients to benefit from this advancement in patient care.

Purpose While peer review is critical for quality and safety in radiotherapy, there are neither formal guidelines nor format examples for brachytherapy (BT) peer review. We report on a gynecologic BT peer-review method implemented at a high-volume academic center. Methods and Materials We analyzed discussions at bimonthly gynecologic BT peer-review rounds between July and December 2018. Rounds consisted of 2–5 attending physicians with gynecologic BT expertise, 1–2 BT physicists, and trainees. Peer-review targets included clinical case review, contours, implant technique, dose/fractionation, and target/organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry. The projected/final target and OAR dosimetry were analyzed. Results 55 separate implants from 44 patients were reviewed. Implants were mostly reviewed after the first BT fraction (n = 16, 29%) or at another time point during BT (n = 20, 36%). One (2%) implant was presented prospectively. The applicator type and BT technique were reviewed for all implants. Dose/fractionation was evaluated for 46 implants (84%); contours were discussed for 21 (38%). Target and OAR dosimetry were reviewed for 54 (98%) and 28 implants (51%), respectively. Six cases (11%) underwent minor changes to the applicator type to improve target and/or OAR dosimetry. One case (2%) had a major change recommended to the dose/fractionation. Conclusions Gynecologic BT peer review may enhance BT quality by allowing for implant optimization and formal review of challenging cases, ultimately improving medical decision-making and team communication. Peer review should be implemented in centers offering gynecologic BT.

Purpose Peer review during physician chart rounds is a major quality assurance and patient safety step in radiation oncology. However, the effectiveness of chart rounds in detecting problematic treatment plans is unknown. We performed a prospective blinded study of error detection at chart rounds to clarify the effectiveness of this quality assurance step. Methods and Materials Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System publications were queried for problematic plans approved for treatment that would be detectable at chart rounds. A resident physician, physicist, and dosimetrist collaboratively generated 20 treatment plans with simulated errors identical in nature to those reported to the Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System. These were inserted randomly into weekly chart rounds over 9 weeks, with a median of 2 problematic plans presented per chart rounds (range, 1-4). Data were collected on detection, attendance, length, and number of cases presented at chart rounds. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and univariable logistic regression with odds ratios. Results The median length of chart rounds over the study period was 60 minutes (range, 42-79); median number of cases presented per chart rounds was 45 (range, 38-50). The overall detection rate was 55% (11 of 20). Detection rates were higher for cases presented earlier in chart rounds: 75% versus 25% of problematic plans were detected within 30 minutes of start of chart rounds versus after 30 minutes (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.88; P = .037). Detection rates showed a trend toward increase during the study period but this was not significant: 33% in weeks 1 to 5 and 73% during weeks 6 to 9 (5.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–36; P = .08). Conclusions The detection of clinically significant problematic plans during chart rounds could be significantly improved. Problematic plans are more frequently detected earlier in chart rounds and inserting such plans into chart rounds may enhance detection; however, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. A multi-institutional study is planned.

Highlights • Alert fatigue is induced by amount of pop up and alert messages. • Vendors of technology underestimate human factor problems. • Readability of messages is a patient safety problem. • Characterizing the alerts for different linacs and treatment types is required., Radiotherapy software messages (sometimes called alerts, pop-up windows, alarms, or error messages) to the user appear continuously on computer screens. These software messages sometimes require decisions to be made as to the next appropriate action. However, mainly these messages are for information only. Dealing with software messages is a well-recognized problem in healthcare and has contributed to catastrophic events both outside and within radiotherapy. The purpose of this work is to highlight the prevalence and raise awareness within the radiotherapy community of such software messages related to external beam radiation therapy procedures at the linear accelerator. Radiation Therapists (RTTs) were asked to record the type and frequency of software message over 50 fractions and for 50 different patients. The data was collected at 6 institutions in the Netherlands using linear accelerators from Elekta, Ltd. and Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Results show that linear accelerator software messages (including record and verify) occur at a rate of about 8.9 messages per patient fraction. This number of software messages is potentially impacting on patient safety as these messages range in level of importance. The impact and potential reduction of these software messages should be the focus of future research and improved implementation.

Author(s): Atwood, Todd F; Brown, Derek W; Juang, Titania; Moore, Kevin L; McConnell, Kristen A; Steers, Jennifer M; Murphy, James D; Mundt, Arno J; Pawlicki, Todd | Abstract: 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.

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 In this work, we investigated the effect on the workflow and setup accuracy of using surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for patient setup, megavoltage cone beam CT (MVCBCT) or kilovoltage cone beam CT (kVCBCT) for imaging and fixed IMRT or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for treatment delivery with the Halcyon linac. Methods We performed a retrospective investigation of 272 treatment fractions, using three different workflows. The first and second workflows used MVCBCT and fixed IMRT for imaging and treatment delivery, and the second one also used SGRT for patient setup. The third workflow used SGRT for setup, kVCBCT for imaging and VMAT for delivery. Workflows were evaluated by comparing the number of fractions requiring repeated imaging acquisitions and the time required for setup, imaging and treatment delivery. Setup position accuracy was assessed by comparing the daily kV‐ or MV‐ CBCT with the planning CT and measuring the residual rotational errors for pitch, yaw and roll angles. Results Without the use of SGRT, the imaging fields were delivered more than once on 11.1% of the fractions, while re‐imaging was necessary in 5.5% of the fractions using SGRT. The total treatment time, including setup, imaging, and delivery, for the three workflows was 531 ± 157 s, 503 ± 130 s and 457 ± 91 s, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the third workflow with the first two. The total residual rotational errors were 1.96 ± 1.29°, 1.28 ± 0.67° and 1.22 ± 0.76° and statistically significant differences were observed when comparing workflows with and without SGRT. Conclusions The use of SGRT allowed for a reduction of re‐imaging during patient setup and improved patient position accuracy by reducing residual rotational errors. A reduction in treatment time using kVCBCT with SGRT was observed. The most efficient workflow was the one including kVCBCT and SGRT for setup and VMAT for delivery.

PURPOSE: In recent years, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has received requests for a standard list of data elements from other societies, database architects, Electronic Health Record vendors and, most recently, the pharmaceutical industry. These requests point to a growing interest in capturing radiation oncology data within registries and for quality measurement, interoperability initiatives, and research. Identifying a short and consistent list will lead to improved care coordination, a reduction in data entry by practice staff, and a more complete view of the holistic approach required for cancer treatment.METHODS AND MATERIALS: The task force formulated recommendations based on analysis from radiation specific data elements currently in use in registries, accreditation programs, incident learning systems, and electronic health records. The draft manuscript was peer reviewed by 8 reviewers and ASTRO legal counsel and was revised accordingly and posted on the ASTRO website for public comment in April 2019 for 2 weeks. The final document was approved by the ASTRO Board of Directors in June 2019.

Purpose The Halcyon consists of precommissioned linear accelerator and treatment planning algorithms that were designed to simplify the acceptance, commissioning, and clinical workflow for image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The purpose of this work was to perform a comprehensive safety assessment for the clinical use of the Halcyon. Methods Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis was used as the safety assessment tool. As part of the analysis, a number of control loops and control actions are created to describe system function. Safety is assessed by determining unsafe control actions and a corresponding list of causal scenarios that leads to accidents. The scope of the analysis was from the acceptance of the Halcyon to routine patient treatments. All aspects of treating patients were considered including the roles of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, and therapists. The analysis was completed by four physicists with input from other members of the radiation therapy team. The causal scenarios were summarized using the causality categories from the consensus recommendations for incident learning database structures in radiation oncology (Med Phys, Vol. 39, No. 12, Dec 2012). Results Twenty-three (23) control loops containing 52 control actions were created for the clinical use of the Halcyon. One hundred forty-four (144) unsafe control actions were identified with 385 associated causal scenarios. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the causal scenarios were related to equipment technical issues, while 73% of the causal scenarios were predominantly related to procedural issues, human behavior, and organizational management. Conclusions For routine clinical use of closed or largely automated radiation therapy equipment, the majority of safety concerns is related to nontechnical issues. The Halcyon and other similar systems may present opportunities to streamline, reduce, or eliminate some traditional equipment commissioning and routine quality assurance activities in exchange for an increased focus on issues related to organizational management, procedures, and human behavior.

Purpose To assess the performance of routine cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) quality assurance (QA) at predicting and diagnosing clinically recognizable linac CBCT image quality issues. Methods Monthly 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). Results Over 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. Conclusion Automated 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.

Purpose This study aimedto 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 treatedand 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.

To evaluate the efficacy of a training program designed to teach medical physicists how to communicate with patients effectively in the clinical environment.The training program was offered 3 times between 2016 and 2019. Participants were asked to rank their level of confidence in 5 categories relevant to patient communication on a 5-point Likert scale at 3 separate time points over the course of the training program. Participants were also asked to provide written responses to 5 common questions from patients at 2 separate time points, and these responses were numerically scored using the Constant Comparative Method. Competency in patient communication was assessed during simulated patient consults using a 9-element clinical competency assessment form. Changes in participants' stated level of confidence over the course of the training program and differences between faculty and residents were analyzed using the Student t test, and participants' scored responses to common questions were analyzed using analysis of variance.Fifteen medical physicists participated in the training program: 6 resident physicists (4 first year and 2 second year) and 9 faculty physicists. Mean participant-stated level of confidence increased significantly across all categories (P.05) between the first and second training intervention and between the second and third training intervention. There was no significant difference in mean participant-stated level of confidence between faculty and resident medical physicists. We observed statistically significant improvements in scored responses to common patient questions between the 2 assessment time points (P.05). Of the 15 participants, 14 met competency assessment goals during simulated patient consults.The patient communication skills training program increases medical physicists' level of confidence across 5 patient communication categories and improves their responses to common questions from patients. In addition, the program can discern differences in communication competency between physicists.

Modern SGRT technology has witnessed a rapid and widespread adoption in the radiation therapy clinic. SGRT provides real-time position information during simulation, patient setup, and treatment delivery including respiratory-correlated techniques. The versatility of the technology holds the promise of creating broad quality and safety benefits in the clinic. This chapter begins with a historical review of optical-based approaches to localization that lead to the development of modern SGRT, from early efforts at verifying patient setup and monitoring patient position with television cameras, to modern real-time in-room guidance and continual localization with advanced 3D imaging and processing technology. The theories and basic principles underpinning current surface imaging technologies are described, including calibration and registration algorithms. The aim of this chapter is to provide the reader with a thorough appreciation of the history and trajectory of SGRT technologies, including their role in the context of modern IGRT, so that the diverse applications of SGRT in the clinic can be fully appreciated.

Purpose/objectives Three‐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/methods A 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. Results One 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

To investigate a new clinical role for medical physicists in direct patient care with a prospective phase 2 clinical trial.Medical physicists participated in the Physics Direct Patient Care (PDPC) protocol, establishing independent professional relationships with radiation oncology patients. After attending a dedicated patient communication training program, medical physicists routinely met with patients for 2 physicist-patient consults to explain the treatment planning and delivery process, review the patient's treatment plan, and answer all technical questions. The first physicist-patient consult took place immediately before the computed tomography simulation, and the second took place immediately before the first treatment. Questionnaires were administered to each patient on the PDPC protocol at 3 time points to assess both anxiety and satisfaction. The first questionnaire was given shortly after the first physicist-patient consult, the second questionnaire was given shortly after the second physicist-patient consult, and the third questionnaire was given after the last treatment appointment, with no associated physicist-patient consult.The mean patient anxiety score was considered to be low at all questionnaire time points. There was a statistically significant decrease (P .0001) in anxiety from the simulation time point to the first treatment time point. The mean patient technical satisfaction score was considered to be high at all measurement time points. There was a statistically significant increase (P = .0012) in technical satisfaction from the simulation time point to the first treatment time point. There was a statistically significant decrease (P .023) in technical satisfaction from the first treatment time point to the last treatment time point.Establishing a new clinical role for medical physicists and investigating its effects on patient anxiety and satisfaction have created the foundation for future studies. Based on the results of this trial, the PDPC protocol will be expanded to a larger group of medical physicists, radiation oncologists, and patient disease sites and investigated with a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

Author(s): Brown, Derek W; Atwood, Todd F; Moore, Kevin L; MacAulay, Robert; Murphy, James D; Mundt, Arno J; Pawlicki, Todd | Abstract: 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.

Purpose New techniques and materials have recently been developed to expedite the conventional linac acceptance testing procedure1 which use the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for data collection. This new procedure is designed to be more efficient and robust than the conventional approach. The purpose of this work is to perform a comparative risk assessment of the two acceptance testing procedures (ATPs). Materials and Methods Failure Modes and Effects Analysis was used to assess risks for both ATP approaches. Five domain experts (Medical Physicists) comprised the analysis team. The risk assessment method and ranking scales were adopted from the AAPM TG-100. The number of failure pathways and associated risk priority numbers (RPNs) for the two ATP approaches were compared. RPNs > 100 were considered high-priority failure modes. Results Fewer failure pathways were determined for the new ATP (ATPEPID) compared to the conventional ATP (ATPconv) resulting in a 44% difference (n = 233 versus n = 534, respectively). There were also 35% fewer RPNs > 100 for the ATPEPID (n = 40) compared to the ATPconv (n = 114). Failure pathways and RPNs > 100 for individual ATP tests were 2.0 and 3.5 times higher, on average, for the ATPconv compared to the ATPEPID, respectively. The EPID pixel sensitivity map was identified as a high risk failure for the ATPEPID. Conclusions Potential errors due to human factors were decreased for the ATPEPID compared to ATPconv so it is possible that a largely automated linac ATP can mitigate many error occurrences. Manufacturers should be careful when designing an EPID-based ATP to address errors in the EPID pixel sensitivity map which can potentially lead to a significant impact on patients’ treatment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Aims To discuss the background for incident reporting and learning systems, as well as the infrastructure and operational aspects to run them. Materials and methods Information from peer-reviewed literature, online resources and the authors' experience synthesised into a concise understanding of the topic. Results Incident learning systems can be local, national or international, each having the same basic goals but facilitating different audiences and environments. A key component of any reporting and learning system is timely and effective analysis of near-misses and incidents as well as feedback to the users of the system. It is important for staff to know that reports are acknowledged, analysed and acted upon. There is a need to comply with current European legislation and other national systems, which can be addressed together with the steps required for comprehensive management of an incident. Conclusion Reporting and learning from incidents and near-misses is a key component of quality and safety in radiotherapy. A major benefit of the national or international systems is the potential for a larger database of incidents, supporting wider analysis and comparison, and sharing of knowledge across a larger community.

Purpose To evaluate the level of risk involved in treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning using a manual test procedure, and to compare the associated process-based risk to that of an automated commissioning process (ACP) by performing an in-depth failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Methods The authors collaborated to determine the potential failure modes of the TPS commissioning process using 1) approaches involving manual data measurement, modeling, and validation tests HYPERLINK \l “Fra98” 1, HYPERLINK \l “Smi15” 2 and 2) an automated process utilizing application programming interface (API) scripting, pre-loaded and pre-modeled standard radiation beam data, digital heterogeneous phantom, and an automated commissioning test suite (ACTS). The severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D) were scored for each failure mode and the risk priority numbers (RPN) were derived based on TG-100 scale. Failure modes were then analyzed and ranked based on RPN. The total number of failure modes, RPN scores and the top ten failure modes with highest risk were described and cross-compared between the two approaches. RPN reduction analysis is also presented and used as another quantifiable metric to evaluate the proposed approach. Results FMEA of a MTP resulted in 47 failure modes with an RPNave of 161 and Save of 6.7. The highest risk process of “Measurement Equipment Selection” resulted in an RPNmax of 640. The FMEA of an ACP resulted in 36 failure modes with an RPNave of 73 and Save of 6.7. The highest risk process of “EPID Calibration” resulted in an RPNmax of 576. Conclusions An FMEA of treatment planning commissioning tests using automation and standardization via API scripting, pre-loaded and pre-modeled standard beam data, and digital phantoms suggests that errors and risks may be reduced through the use of an ACP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

AlignRT is a surface imaging system that has been utilized for localizing and tracking patient position during radiotherapy. AlignRT has two calibration procedures that can set the system's isocenter called “Monthly Calibration” (MC) and “Isocentre Calibration” (IC). The MC utilizes a calibration plate. In addition to the calibration plate, the IC utilizes a cubic phantom that is imaged with the linac treatment beam to aid in aligning the AlignRT and treatment‐beam isocenters. This work evaluated the effects of misaligning the calibration plate during the calibration process. The plate was intentionally shifted away from isocenter ±3.0 mm in the longitudinal and lateral directions and ±1.0 mm in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions. A mock stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment was used to evaluate the effects of the miscalibrations. An anthropomorphic head phantom was placed in an SRS treatment position and monitored with the AlignRT system. The AlignRT‐indicated offsets were recorded at 270°, 315°, 0°, 45°, and 90° couch angles for each intentional misalignment of the calibration plate during the MC. The IC was also performed after each miscalibration, and the measurements were repeated and compared to the previous results. With intentional longitudinal and lateral shifts of ±3.0 mm and ±1.0 mm of the calibration plate, the average indicated offsets at couch rotations of ±90° were 4.3 mm and 1.6 mm, respectively. This was in agreement with the theoretical offset of √2*(shift‐of‐the‐calibration plate). Since vertical shifts were along the rotation axis of the couch, these shifts had little effect on the offsets with changing couch angle. When the IC was applied, the indicated offsets were all within 0.5 mm for all couch angles for each of the miscalibrations. These offsets were in agreement with the known magnitude of couch walkout. The IC method effectively removes the potential miscalibration artifacts of the MC method due to misalignments of the calibration plate.

This review will discuss the (perhaps biased) way in which smart oncologists think, biases they can identify, and potential strategies to minimize the impact of bias. It is critical to understand cognitive bias as a significant risk (recognized by the Joint Commission) associated with patient safety, and cognitive bias has been implicated in major radiotherapy incidents. The way in which we think are reviewed, covering both System 1 and system 2 processes of thinking, as well as behavioral economics concepts (prospect theory, expected utility theory). Predisposing factors to cognitive error are explained, with exploration of the groupings of person factors, patient factors, and system factors which can influence the quality of our decision-making. Other factors found to influence decision making are also discussed (rudeness, repeated decision making, hunger, personal attitudes). The review goes on to discuss cognitive bias in the clinic and in workplace interactions (including recruitment), with practical examples provided of each bias. Finally, the review covers strategies to combat cognitive bias, including summarize aloud, crowd wisdom, prospective hindsight, and joint evaluation. More definitive ways to mitigate bias are desirable.

Purpose: In surface image guided radiosurgery, action limits are created to determine at what point intrafractional motion exhibited by the patient is large enough to warrant intervention. Action limit values remain constant across patients despite the fact that patient motion affects the target coverage of brain metastases differently depending on the planning technique and other treatment plan-specific factors. The purpose of this work was twofold. The first purpose was to characterize the sensitivity of single-met per iso and multimet per iso treatment plans to uncorrected patient motion. The second purpose was to describe a method to prospectively determine treatment plan-specific action limits considering this sensitivity. Methods: In their surface image guided radiosurgery technique, patient positioning is achieved with a thermoplastic mask that does not cover the patient's face. The patient's exposed face is imaged by a stereoscopic photogrammetry system. It is then compared to a reference surface and monitored throughout treatment. Seventy-two brain metastases (representing 29 patients) were used for this study. Twenty-five mets were treated individually (“single-met per iso plans”), and 47 were treated in a plan simultaneously with at least one other met (“multimet per iso plans”). For each met, the proportion of the gross tumor volume that remained within the 100% prescription isodose line was estimated under the influence of combinations of translations and rotations (0.0–3.0 mm and 0.0°–3.0°, respectively). The target volume and the prescription dose–volume were considered concentric spheres that each encompassed a volume determined from the treatment plan. Plan-specific contour plots and DVHs were created to illustrate the sensitivity of a specific lesion to uncorrected patient motion. Results: Both single-met per iso and multimet per iso plans exhibited compromised target coverage under translations and rotations, though multimet per iso plans were considerably more sensitive to these transformations (2.3% and 39.8%, respectively). Plan-specific contour plots and DVHs were used to illustrate how size, distance from isocenter, and planning technique affect a particular met's sensitivity to motion. Conclusions: Stereotactic radiosurgery treatment plans that treat multiple brain metastases using a common isocenter are particularly susceptible to compromised target coverage as a result of uncorrected patient motion. The use of such a planning technique along with other treatment plan-specific factors should influence patient motion management. A graphical representation of the effect of translations and rotations on any particular plan can be generated to inform clinicians of the appropriate action limit when monitoring intrafractional motion.

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.

Purpose Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA. Methods The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and γ dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the γ verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. Results Operational shortcomings that can reduce the γ tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined. Conclusion Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was 2-fold. One purpose was to develop an automated, streamlined quality assurance (QA) program for use by multiple centers. The second purpose was to evaluate machine performance over time for multiple centers using linear accelerator (Linac) log files and electronic portal images. The authors sought to evaluate variations in Linac performance to establish as a reference for other centers. Methods: The authors developed analytical software tools for a QA program using both log files and electronic portal imaging device (EPID) measurements. The first tool is a general analysis tool which can read and visually represent data in the log file. This tool, which can be used to automatically analyze patient treatment or QA log files, examines the files for Linac deviations which exceed thresholds. The second set of tools consists of a test suite of QA fields, a standard phantom, and software to collect information from the log files on deviations from the expected values. The test suite was designed to focus on the mechanical tests of the Linac to include jaw, MLC, and collimator positions during static, IMRT, and volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery. A consortium of eight institutions delivered the test suitemore » at monthly or weekly intervals on each Linac using a standard phantom. The behavior of various components was analyzed for eight TrueBeam Linacs. Results: For the EPID and trajectory log file analysis, all observed deviations which exceeded established thresholds for Linac behavior resulted in a beam hold off. In the absence of an interlock-triggering event, the maximum observed log file deviations between the expected and actual component positions (such as MLC leaves) varied from less than 1% to 26% of published tolerance thresholds. The maximum and standard deviations of the variations due to gantry sag, collimator angle, jaw position, and MLC positions are presented. Gantry sag among Linacs was 0.336 ± 0.072 mm. The standard deviation in MLC position, as determined by EPID measurements, across the consortium was 0.33 mm for IMRT fields. With respect to the log files, the deviations between expected and actual positions for parameters were small (

Purpose: Surface image guided, Linac-based radiosurgery (SIG-RS) is a modern approach for delivering radiosurgery that utilizes optical stereoscopic imaging to monitor the surface of the patient during treatment in lieu of using a head frame for patient immobilization. Considering the novelty of the SIG-RS approach and the severity of errors associated with delivery of large doses per fraction, a risk assessment should be conducted to identify potential hazards, determine their causes, and formulate mitigation strategies. The purpose of this work is to investigate SIG-RS using the combined application of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and fault tree analysis (FTA), report on the effort required to complete the analysis, and evaluate the use of FTA in conjunction with FMEA. Methods: A multidisciplinary team was assembled to conduct the FMEA on the SIG-RS process. A process map detailing the steps of the SIG-RS was created to guide the FMEA. Failure modes were determined for each step in the SIG-RS process, and risk priority numbers (RPNs) were estimated for each failure mode to facilitate risk stratification. The failure modes were ranked by RPN, and FTA was used to determine the root factors contributing to the riskiest failure modes. Using the FTA, mitigation strategies were formulated to address the root factors and reduce the risk of the process. The RPNs were re-estimated based on the mitigation strategies to determine the margin of risk reduction. Results: The FMEA and FTAs for the top two failure modes required an effort of 36 person-hours (30 person-hours for the FMEA and 6 person-hours for two FTAs). The SIG-RS process consisted of 13 major subprocesses and 91 steps, which amounted to 167 failure modes. Of the 91 steps, 16 were directly related to surface imaging. Twenty-five failure modes resulted in a RPN of 100 or greater. Only one of these top 25 failure modes was specific to surface imaging. The riskiest surface imaging failure mode had an overall RPN-rank of eighth. Mitigation strategies for the top failure mode decreased the RPN from 288 to 72. Conclusions: Based on the FMEA performed in this work, the use of surface imaging for monitoring intrafraction position in Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) did not greatly increase the risk of the Linac-based SRS process. In some cases, SIG helped to reduce the risk of Linac-based RS. The FMEA was augmented by the use of FTA since it divided the failure modes into their fundamental components, which simplified the task of developing mitigation strategies.

Derived from 2 yr of deliberations and community engagement, Medical Physics 3.0 (MP3.0) is an effort commissioned by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) to devise a framework of strategies by which medical physicists can maintain and improve their integral roles in, and contributions to, health care and its innovation under conditions of rapid change and uncertainty. Toward that goal, MP3.0 advocates a broadened and refreshed model of sustainable excellence by which medical physicists can and should contribute to health care. The overarching conviction of MP3.0 is that every healthcare facility can benefit from medical physics and every patient's care can be improved by a medical physicist. This large and expansive challenge necessitates a range of strategies specific to each area of medical physics: clinical practice, research, product development, and education. The present paper offers a summary of the Phase 1 deliberations of the MP3.0 initiative pertaining to strategic directions of the discipline primarily but not exclusively oriented toward the clinical practice of medical physics in the United States.

Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA.The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and γ dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the γ verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented.Operational shortcomings that can reduce the γ tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined.Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.

PurposeToanalyze 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 classII 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

Intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) has been used clinically for many years. Reports from the RPC indicate that up to 30% of the institutions fail to pass RPC IMRT credentialing process on the first attempt. While volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been introduced more recently, it has quickly gained wide clinical use. In spite of the long history with IMRT and rapid adoption of VMAT, commissioning and developing a quality assurance (QA) program continues to be a challenge especially in busy departments. These points indicate that a review of commissioning and quality assurance for IMRT is still very much needed. In this session, the development of an overall IMRT/VMAT QA program, the role of team members and on‐going program functions will be described including aspects of both quality and safety. General issues and specifics of IMRT/VMAT commissioning and quality assurance will be covered. While the general principles of commissioning and QA apply to any device capable of intensity‐modulation, specific examples will be provided for Elekta and Varian linear accelerators. Strategies for commission and useful checklists will be discussed as well as some differences between Elekta and Varian technologies. There will also be a focus on practical advice towards the implementation and on‐going QA of linac‐based IMRT and VMAT. Patient‐ specific QA strategies along with the comparison of different QA equipment and techniques will be presented. Lastly, differences will be highlighted between IMRT and VMAT for patient‐specific QA. Learning Objectives: 1. Understand approaches to IMRT/VMAT commissioning and QA 2. Describe most relevant issues in patient‐specific QA for IMRT/VMAT 3. Discuss issues with IMRT /VMAT QA equipment and techniques

Purpose: Mathematical models are used in Industrial & Systems Engineering to analyze complex integrated operational systems. Adapting this approach to radiation therapy can help quantify the precision and accuracy necessary to achieve optimal outcome of radiation treatment. The purpose of this work is to develop such a model using clinical data and assess the effect uncertainties have on treatment outcomes. Methods: The Taguchi Loss Function (TLF) is adapted to radiation therapy using conventional radiobiological models for tumorcontrol probabilities (TCP) and normal tissues complication probabilities (NTCP) based on the equivalent uniform dose. The TCP and NTCP curves are combined to create a failure probability function for a given treatment plan. The composite effects of all uncertainties involved in treating a patient are modeled by a normal distribution. The standard deviation and mean of the normal distribution represent the precision and accuracy of a treatment. The failure probability function is convolved with the normal distribution to arrive at an expected failure probability. Precision was varied from 0.5% to 25% while accuracy ranged from ±5% to investigate uncertainties effects on complication‐free local tumorcontrol. 3D 4‐field box plans where compared to IMRT plans for 18 prostate patients using this method. Results: The average expected failure probability at the prescription dose for the 3D 4‐field box plans was 30.02% and 18.13% for the IMRT plans at zero uncertainty. At 25% uncertainty the expected failure probabilities were 76.85% and 64.36%, respectively. On average the IMRT plans failure probability was 14.84% less than the 3D 4‐field box plans for all uncertainty levels. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that uncertainty in radiotherapy procedures has a quantifiable effect on treatment outcome. To further improve complication‐free local tumorcontrol we must both improve treatment technologies and improve quality to minimize the uncertainties in radiation therapy.

Practice Quality Improvement (PQI) is becoming an expected part of routine practice in healthcare as an approach to provide more efficient, effective and high quality care. Additionally, as part of the ABR's Maintenance of Certification (MOC) pathway, medical physicists are now expected to complete a PQI project. This session will describe the history behind and benefits of the ABR's MOC program, provide details of quality improvement methods and how to successfully complete a PQI project. PQI methods include various commonly used engineering and management tools. The Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) cycle will be presented as one project planning and implementation tool. Other PQI analysis instruments such as flowcharts, Pareto charts, process control charts and fishbone diagrams will also be explained with examples. Cause analysis, solution development and implementation, and post‐implementation measurement will be presented. Project identification and definition as well as appropriate measurement tool selection will be offered. Methods to choose key quality metrics (key quality indicators) will also be addressed. Several sample PQI projects and templates available through the AAPM and other organizations will be described. At least three examples of completed PQI projects will be shared. Learning Objectives: 1. Identify and define a PQI project 2. Identify and select measurement methods/techniques for use with the PQI project 3. Describe example(s) of completed projects