Electronic charting of radiation therapy planning and treatment: Report of Task Group 262

Radiopharmaceutical and Radioembolization Therapy: Clinical Guidance for Medical Physicists in Radiation Oncology

Recent advances in radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) and radioembolization (RE) will make these forms of therapy more prevalent in radiation oncology and nuclear medicine clinics. This article guides medical physicists in radiation oncology by summarizing current RPT and RE techniques, processes, safety, quality assurance, equipment, and others. The summarized guidance, which addresses technical considerations, may be applied broadly to develop a clinical RPT/RE program that offers multiple types of such therapies.

Enhancing patient safety in radiotherapy: Implementation of a customized electronic checklist for radiation therapists

Introduction

The radiotherapy workflow involves the collaboration of multiple professionals and the execution of several steps to results in an effective treatment. In this study, we described the clinical implementation of an electronic checklist, developed to standardize the process of the chart review prior to the first treatment fraction by the radiation therapists (RTTs).

Materials and Methods

A customized electronic checklist was developed based on the recommendations of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Groups 275 and 315 and integrated into the Record and Verify System (RVS). The checklist consisted of 16 items requiring binary (yes/no) responses, with mandatory completion and review by RTTs prior to treatment. The utility of the checklist and its impact on workflow were assessed by analysing checklist reports, and by soliciting feedback to RTTs through an anonymized survey.

Results

During the first trial phase, from June to November 2023, 285 checklists were completed with a 98% compilation rate and 94.4% review rate. Forty errors were detected, mainly due to missing signed treatment plans and absence of Beam's Eye View documentation. Ninety percent of detected errors were fixed before the treatment start. In 4 cases, the problem could not be fixed before the first fraction, resulting in a suboptimal first treatment. The feedback survey showed that RTTs described the checklist as useful, with minimal impact on workload, and supported its implementation.

Discussion

The introduction of a customized electronic checklist improved the detection and correction of errors, thereby enhancing patient safety. The positive response from RTTs and the minimal impact on workflow underscore the value of the checklist as standard practice in radiotherapy departments.

Quality and Safety Considerations in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO Safety White Paper Update

PURPOSE

This updated report on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is part of a series of consensus-based white papers previously published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) addressing patient safety. Since the first white papers were published, IMRT went from widespread use to now being the main delivery technique for many treatment sites. IMRT enables higher radiation doses to be delivered to more precise targets while minimizing the dose to uninvolved normal tissue. Due to the associated complexity, IMRT requires additional planning and safety checks before treatment begins and, therefore, quality and safety considerations for this technique remain important areas of focus.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

ASTRO convened an interdisciplinary task force to assess the original IMRT white paper and update content where appropriate. Recommendations were created using a consensus-building methodology, and task force members indicated their level of agreement based on a 5-point Likert scale, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." A prespecified threshold of ≥75% of raters who select "strongly agree" or "agree" indicated consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This IMRT white paper primarily focuses on quality and safety processes in planning and delivery. Building on the prior version, this consensus paper incorporates revised and new guidance documents and technology updates. IMRT requires an interdisciplinary team-based approach, staffed by appropriately trained individuals as well as significant personnel resources, specialized technology, and implementation time. A comprehensive quality assurance program must be developed, using established guidance, to ensure IMRT is performed in a safe and effective manner. Patient safety in the delivery of IMRT is everyone's responsibility, and professional organizations, regulators, vendors, and end-users must work together to ensure the highest levels of safety.

Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT

Background and purpose

The study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators.

Methods

A total of 420 treatment plans with 5 consecutive treatment log files were collected from the Trilogy, TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators. Millennium MLC was equipped on the Trilogy and TrueBeam accelerators. A jawless design and dual-layer MLC were adopted on the Halcyon accelerator. 70 IMRT and 70 VMAT plans were selected randomly on each accelerator. The treatment sites of all plans included head and neck, chest, breast, pelvis and other sites. The parsing tasks for 2100 log files were proceeded by SunCheck software from Sun Nuclear Corporation. The maximum leaf root mean square (RMS) errors, 95th percentile errors and percentages of different leaf positioning errors were statistically analyzed. The correlations between these evaluation parameters and accelerator performance parameters (maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed, gantry and arc angle) were analyzed.

Results

The average maximum leaf RMS errors of the Trilogy in the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0.44 ± 0.09 mm and 0.79 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, which were higher than the TrueBeam's 0.03 ± 0.01 mm, 0.03 ± 0.01 mm and the Halcyon's 0.05 ± 0.01 mm, 0.07 ± 0.01 mm. Similar data results were shown in the 95th percentile error. The maximum leaf RMS errors were strongly correlated with the 95th percentile errors (Pearson index > 0.5). The leaf positioning deviations in VMAT were higher than those in IMRT for all accelerators. In TrueBeam and Halcyon, leaf position errors above 1 mm were not found in IMRT and VMAT plans. The main influencing factor of leaf positioning deviation was the leaf speed, which has no strong correlation with gantry and arc angles.

Conclusions

Compared with the quality assurance guidelines, the MLC positioning deviations tolerances of the three accelerators should be tightened. For both IMRT and VMAT techniques, the 95th percentile error and the maximum RMS error are suggested to be tightened to 1.5 and 1 mm respectively for the Trilogy accelerator. In TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators, the 95th percentile error and maximum RMS error of 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively, are considered appropriate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02097-0.

An Investigation of Radiation Treatment Learning Opportunities in Relation to the Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record: A Single Institution Experience

Purpose

A modern radiation oncology electronic medical record (RO-EMR) system represents a sophisticated human-computer interface with the potential to reduce human driven errors and improve patient safety. As the RO-EMR becomes an integral part of clinical processes, it may be advantageous to analyze learning opportunities (LO) based on their relationship with the RO-EMR. This work reviews one institution's documented LO to: (1) study their relationship with the RO-EMR workflow, (2) identify best opportunities to improve RO-EMR workflow design, and (3) identify current RO-EMR workflow challenges.

Methods and Materials

Internal LO reports for an 11-year contiguous period were categorized by their relationship to the RO-EMR. We also identify the specific components of the RO-EMR used or involved in each LO. Additionally, contributing factor categories from the ASTRO/AAPM sponsored Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System's (RO-ILS) nomenclature was used to characterize LO directly linked to the RO-EMR.

Results

A total of 163 LO from the 11-year period were reviewed and analyzed. Most (77.2%) LO involved the RO-EMR in some way. The majority of the LO were the results of human/manual operations. The most common RO-EMR components involved in the studied LO were documentation related to patient setup, treatment session schedule functionality, RO-EMR used as a communication/note-delivery tool, and issues with treatment accessories. Most of the LO had staff lack of attention and policy not followed as 2 of the highest occurring contributing factors.

Conclusions

We found that the majority of LO were related to RO-EMR workflow processes. The high-risk areas were related to manual data entry or manual treatment execution. An evaluation of LO as a function of their relationship with the RO-EMR allowed for opportunities for improvement. In addition to regular radiation oncology quality improvement review and policy update, automated functions in RO-EMR remain highly desirable.